< 8 November	10 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 keep. It is clear this article is need of improvement to remove the problems identified here, but it appears these problems do not rise to such a level that the only choice is to delete it entirely. Consensus does not appear to favor the view that the topic itself is invalid. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perjury in Nigeria[edit]

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

Unreferenced essay / original research. A long way from being a Wikipedia article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is referenced to a number of pieces of legislation (I would have thought that the meaning of "section ... of the Nigerian Penal Code" was perfectly clear, unless there is more than one) and to a number of cases, although the citation of the cases is clearly not adequate. I suspect that "Phillpots", for example, is R v Phillpots (1851) 2 Den 302, which is available online from CommonLII if you want to check. "R v Threlfall" is certainly R v Threlfall, 10 Cr App R 112. It is also referenced to Working Paper No 33 of the Law Commission which is on BAILII. And I can see a reference to Coke's Institutes, which is on Google Books, as well. The sources of much of this could probably be clarified quite quickly. I say this without prejudice to the question of original research/original synthesis. James500 (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Mostly because it's an essay / original research, but also because there's no compelling reason that "Perjury in Nigeria" needs to be spun off from the existing article Perjury. I'd recommend that James500 (above) read our policies on original research and reliable sources to understand why legal citations and law commission reports (which are primary sources) are not acceptable foundations for a Wikipedia article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not say that they were not primary sources (although law reports and printed copies of legislation are secondary sources in so far as they are evidence of what was said), I merely said that the article was not unreferenced. James500 (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And I recommend that you read up on the rule of law that says that textbooks, with certain exceptions, are not authority for, or evidence of, any proposition of law. James500 (talk) 05:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand your points above, both in principle and in specific reference to the legal concepts you mention. However, you are not in court presenting a case; you are writing an encyclopaedic article. "Authority" in the legal sense (that is, legal precedent) has nothing to do with "reliable sources" in an encyclopaedic sense. You may also be getting confused between the legal concepts of "primary and secondary evidence" and the academic concepts of "primary and secondary sources". The report of a court case is the primary source in regards to that court case; it is a direct transcription, with some small headnoting, of the judge's decision delivered in the case. It provides no additional context that could not have been gained by standing in court on the day the decision was delivered (although it may be easier to read and have some artefacts of the spoken word omitted). (I am speaking here from personal experience - court reporting is my job.) A legal article in Wikipedia should be based not on reports and transcripts, but rather on the subsequent analysis and discussion of those cases. Further, please note that (a) Wikipedia policy SPECIFICALLY names legal reports as primary sources for Wikipedia purposes, and (b) that an article referenced entirely to primary sources is, for Wikipedia purposes, unreferenced. Wikipedia relies on ANALYTICAL sources to found articles - that is, sources, that provide analysis, context or criticism of data, rather than merely a transcription of it. To put it another way, a Wikipedia article should not look at disparate events and explain their significance - it should merely quote someone else, who has already done that work. If you're still confused, please take the time to thoroughly read our policies on sourcing as they may explain the situation better than I am able to. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:IAR. Time to rewrite the policy. (I should say that I do appreciate that this particular article does have serious problems, viz that it is written like an essay, seems to substantially duplicate an essay on Wikiversity, contains material on English law that probably belongs elsewhere, some of it appears wholly unsourced, and some of the sources are sufficiently unclear that further research would be required to determine what they are, although I could guess at where a lot of this is coming from, because the names of the cases and at least some of the details match what is in Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice and I can guess at who (Sir James Fitzjames) Stephen and (William/Serjeant) Hawkins are aswell.) James500 (talk) 08:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, looking at these policies closely, I am not seeing any assertion that legislation and cases are not reliable sources as regards determining what the law is. James500 (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - That is because Wikipedia is completely uninterested in what the law is. It's an encyclopaedia; it's only interested in what people have SAID the law is. Encyclopaedias don't deal in objective truth, they deal in what reliable secondary sources have reported the truth to be. Please look at some of our Good and Featured Articles on legal topics for an example. Roe v. Wade is a good example; case citations are used there to direct the reader to the primary sources for their further information, but the article itself is founded exclusively on secondary and tertiary sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        As this article cites a number of textbooks, this is no longer an issue for this AfD. James500 (talk) 06:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC) Also, saying that perjury in Nigerian law should not have been split from Perjury is an argument for merger, not deletion. James500 (talk) 06:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC) I am not seeing any assertion that legislation and cases are not reliable sources as regards determining what people have said the law is either. James500 (talk) 13:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        (Still maintaining my Delete vote) I have reassessed the article in light of the improvements. I still argue to delete. The article is still fundamentally unencyclopaedic. It's presented in an essay style, complete with conclusion section. It's written in a way that hints at original research ("this tends to suggest", "may be regarded as", "however, if the provisions of the Indian Penal Code is to be used"). The article may well be improvable, but in order to fix the WP:NOT#ESSAY problem any such improvement would have to start by deleting all of the text except the reference list and beginning from scratch; the article should accordingly be deleted on WP:NOT#ESSAY grounds with no prejudice against re-creation in an acceptable format. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:47, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Hints at original research? Check the sources and tell me that it is original research. That said, a bald statement such as "section 117 of the Criminal Code says, and I quote, X", unless it is inaccurate, is not objectionable and would qualify for merger even if we did not retain a separate article. James500 (talk) 07:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Also, even if we deleted everything except the sources, a list of cases that are relevant to a particular subject is, in of itself, encyclopedic (though obviously less than ideal). James500 (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        For the avoidance of doubt, I have not finished improving the article. James500 (talk) 06:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An IP has added a list of references to the bottom of the article. They include a number of textbooks. James500 (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Provisionally, I think that it might be possible to fix this article. James500 (talk) 08:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep I thought it was possible to fix as it did include references, although hidden in the text or lost off the draft; and the topic is encyclopedic as named. The original name was very essay like but the material on perjury included is largely suitable for an article. A bit of pruning can take out the opinion and persuasive language and leave the factual content. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Another editor has nominated this article for speedy deletion on grounds of CSD G4. James500 (talk) 12:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC) The previous AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evading Justice - Perjury as a related offence. James500 (talk) 13:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

as this article is sourced, and the earlier one was not, I think it needs a new discussion--I'm declining the speedy. DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Law of (Whatever) in a particular country is a valid encyclopedic topic. Some editing is needed, but most of it is usable. The Public Policy program last year resulted in many similarly detailed articles, and it looks like the Global Ambassadors Program this year will also. We have hundreds of articles on law that say what the law is based on the legislation and cases brought under it. If they are appeal court decisions, we do accept them as definitive statements until overturned--this matches the reality in the world. An appeal court's summary of the law is as authoritative as any source can possibly be, and is a secondary source within the proper meaning of the term, since it's based on the interpretation of the other cases by a named person in a position of authority. I agree it is best to confirm this by having a reference from a textbook to confirm the standard interpretation, but it isn't necessary . DGG ( talk ) 18:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The page history may be needed to maintain attribution for this. James500 (talk) 12:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC) Remark struck. James500 (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would turn that comment on it head: since wikiversity:Evading Justice - Perjury as a related offence exists, why do we need it here as well? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably because we intend to [expand], redact, rephrase and rearrange it until it looks like an article. James500 (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Word in brackets added. James500 (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This article now contains material that is not, as far as I can see, included in the essay on Wikiversity. James500 (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At this moment, I am unable to agree that this article should be deleted. I am undecided on the possibility of merger. James500 (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or stubify as WP:OR. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The article does not consist exclusively of original research. James500 (talk) 06:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but only if it's first hacked to bits - This is certainly a topic that we should have an article on, so no issue there. But I'm seeing a lot of OR and unusable mush, some of it possibly even a copyvio. It's gonna need serious work.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a copyvio? Is it or isn't it? James500 (talk) 06:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC) And what? And from where? James500 (talk) 07:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Also AfD is not cleanup. The fact that an article needs to be "hacked to bits" or requires "serious work" is not a reason to delete it. It should not be deleted if it is capable of being fixed. James500 (talk) 12:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The only verbatim text I can find duplicates the Wikiversity article - though I have not checked everything. That said, much of this article duplicates the wikiversity article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is not a problem as it comes from the same person who posted it here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My comments above should be construed as a default keep. James500 (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the original rationale for deletion no longer applies. Kanatonian (talk) 16:10, 17 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. One two three... 20:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan101[edit]

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

Poorly sourced biography of a living person. Barely meets WP:NMG. Created by WP:SPA User:Tom Flanders1995. bender235 (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:17, 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. One two three... 20:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMET (EU project)[edit]

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

Yet another Eurospam article. Non-notable project, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete -- I don't like the term eurospam at all, as it implies (to me) that anything to do with the EU projects is inevitably spam, yet some projects are extensive, notable and highly beneficial. (The Erasmus Programme comes to mind.) But in this particular case I don't see how the article can be saved. There are plenty of independent evaluations of unrelated projects called COMET, but I can't find any for this particular COMET. I tinkered a bit with the article to justify unPRODing it, but I think that at best, the material belongs in Training needs analysis or some sort of Support for SMEs article. --Northernhenge (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I absolutely don't want to imply, by using the term "Eurospam", that anything to do with the EU is spam (for what it is worth, I'm a huge supporter of the EU, which as far as I am concerned should get the Nobel Peace Price each and every year...) There are many things about the EU that are notable. Unfortunately, for some reason, many researchers involved in EU-funded projects seem to feel compelled to create a WP article about that (hardly any NIH/NSF/HFS grantee does something like that) and almost none of these individual research projects are notable in the WP sense. Hope this clarifies. --Crusio (talk) 09:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see what you mean. Getting EU funding doesn't of itself make a project notable, and many (most?) projects are extremely small. --Northernhenge (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article and its associated website both say COMET comes under the EU Lifelong Learning Programme 2007–2013. That suggests a merge into that article would be appropriate. However that Programme's own site lists four sub-programmes, none of which is this one. Given its field of adult vocational education, it would seem closest to the Grundtvig programme, but again I can find no reference to COMET from that subproject. So unless some element of the Lifelong Learning Programme can be found that acknowledges COMET as notable enough for coverage within the Programme, it seems unlikely to be sufficiently notable for Wikipedia either, so delete. AllyD (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:59, 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. Black Kite (t) 00:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of commitment ordering[edit]

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

Appears to be an apologia for commitment ordering, bewailing its lack of recognition (for example, one entire section is entitled "CO continues to be ignored in database texts"). SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commitment ordering needs no apologia. The History is about facts. I see no bewailing here. --Comps (talk) 23:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commitment ordering is a very useful and thus important concept. Thus its quite complex evolution is important and of interest. This History article chronicles its evolution and utilization in several areas. --Comps (talk) 12:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is almost entirely written by a single user who appears to be the only editor with working knowledge of the subject. While also being written like an essay, it is also written in such prolific technical jargon that I don't even know how to begin cleaning up the article myself. In-line references are also missing, which means that none of the statements in the article can be attributed to a particular source. If the main editor of the article, Comps would like to weigh in here and respond to the concerns expressed here, that would be appreciated. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to respond. Thanks. Pls see my main reply and vote (maybe earlier) in a separate section below.

1. Single editor: The group of experts in the area is relatively small. The subject though is important and has interested readers (~30 for CO, and ~10 History daily; I so many other with much less). Interest in subject is increasing as CO utilization increases. So, does this mean that the subject should disappear from Wikipedia? I think that it is positive that an expert is willing to put his time and energy to help Wikipedia with better coverage of important subjects. The key here is the lasting importance of the subject. 1 (expert) is better than 0.

2. Essay style: This is a description of event chronology (history). I cannot imagine a better style than here (essay?), but willing to get any specific advice for improvement.

3. In-line references missing: I use the legitimate in-line method Wikipedia:Citing sources#Parenthetical referencing. I did so since preferred refs grouped by sub-subject, and many links in article to. Willing to have advice.

4. prolific technical jargon: You cannot describe Concurrency control (CC) without its jargon. For any branch of Math or Physics or other science/tech you rely on jargon specific to the subject. This History article is in the framework of CC and its jargon. Many know Math and Physics jargon to some degree. Very few CC, and it requires effort and learning curve. The lead and intro sections have minimum jargon, and can be read almost independently of CC context.

--Comps (talk) 10:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article, in its current state, is so confusingly written, so poorly contextualised, and so arcanely referenced that I cannot see how it can possibly be usefully edited, improved, expanded or trimmed by other editors. In addition, much or all of the article appears to be original research (in several places, after citing a source, the author of the article then argues with the source or points out its errors). - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my main reply and vote (maybe earlier) in a separate section below.

1. Quality: The article is very modular (by many well named subject sections) and with a logical chronological order of events (as expected in History). It should be read in the context of Commitment ordering (CO). It does not have independent life and rely on the content of CO (linked all over) in order to make sense. Once you are in it, you have no problem to edit. The sentences are English (Essay?). To get into meaning you have to get into the subject and understand it, as in any other new science/tech.

2. arcanely referenced: Uses the legitimate in-line method Wikipedia:Citing sources#Parenthetical referencing.

3. Original research: No. This is not original research. It exactly describes what exists (related to CO) in the referenced articles and possibly what is missing relatively to other references by different authors. No new material or facts out of the references at all.

I would love to get any general suggestions that will make the article more readable. --Comps (talk) 10:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. I am the author of the article. I never knew it was a candidate for deletion before (maybe as a stub; there was some criticism on too many references with a short article).

First and most, about the article's importance. I will later deal with shape, and reply to individual comments of others by writing below each. Commitment ordering (CO)is a revolutionary invention, utilized now in many areas of computerized technology where transactions find use. CO's utilization is increasing from day to day. This article well documents the CO concept evolution and utilization, and gives the related chronology. Many misconceptions have existed with both CO and its history. The history (~26 years) has been unknown to most people, and it seems that none of the experts in the area has had the full picture, including the CO inventor. This article is the first place where all the facts are gathered, and thus perfectly fulfills Wikipedia's goal as a center and source of knowledge to the public. I researched it and for this reason wrote it here. I have no doubt about the importance of the entry, which includes some tension, and I strongly believe Wikipedia is a good home, where everybody, not just academics, can read it and be inspired by it (and use CO freely when patents expire in two-three years).

Regarding shape and quality: I'll talk here in general and individually reply to each comment of other below the comment. Though the subject (CO) is mathematical, no math formalism is used in this article for general readership (as in other related articles I initiated or substantially rewrote and expanded in Wikipedia; specifically, in increasing difficulty and decreased generality, Concurrency control, Serializability, Global serializability, Two-phase locking, Commitment ordering; recommended to be read in this order). This article, History, is complementary to Commitment ordering, which deals with the tech material (Vs. History here). It links to various sections in the CO article. It is not an easy article (as well as the other Concurrency control articles and other scientific Wikipedia articles), but can be read by everybody who is willing to do some thinking effort. Like many tech Wikipedia articles it gives both the broad picture which requires no prior knowledge, particularly in the lead section and intro sections, and then all the details to an interested person and expert. It is well quoted and referenced (using the legitimate inline method Wikipedia:Citing sources#Parenthetical referencing). This article includes many quotes that are sometimes difficult to understand since they span two different Concurrency control theory schools with different terminology and formalism (as mentioned in lead database Concurrency control section). Each fact can be verified in the linked references. I'll be glad to get any comment for improvement.

--Comps (talk) 10:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC) --Comps (talk) 08:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to go through your arguments here:

Commitment ordering (CO)is a revolutionary invention, utilized now in many areas of computerized technology where transactions find use. CO's utilization is increasing from day to day.

Calling CO "revolutionary" is unnecessary. That said, it appears that, indeed, this concept has been used in the literature and in several applications. But you have presented it in a way that is completely unreadable and therefore inaccessible to the vast majority of users.

Calling it such in an article is unheard of unless a quotation. But this is my own opinion, offline. I cannot argue with you about inaccessibility. Believe me I have tried to make it as accessible as possible for years (see articles' histories). The subject is not easy. You have to look in the professional literature: My text is a simplification in orders of magnitude, even have been complimented (inside an article...Vandalism...).

Many misconceptions have existed with both CO and its history.

Maybe, but putting in statements saying that CO "has been largely misunderstood and misrepresented" is classic original research. There are several such portions of this piece that serve as a platform to basically complain about why this research has not gotten its due recognition. Unfortunately, that's not what Wikipedia is for.

I think you are right. I did not see this (got no feedback). It will be removed, and I'll look there for alike to remove. I already removed quite few pieces that looked to me opinion, rather than something that can be referenced as a fact, but possibly more exist, that I could not see as a single reviewer (not just editor).

I have no doubt about the importance of the entry, which includes some tension, and I strongly believe Wikipedia is a good home, where everybody, not just academics, can read it...no math formalism is used in this article for general readership (as in other related articles I initiated or substantially rewrote and expanded in Wikipedia; specifically, in increasing difficulty and decreased generality: Concurrency control, Serializability, Global serializability, Two-phase locking, Commitment ordering; recommended to be read in this order).

I can assure you that this style of writing is not inviting, period. You are writing about a highly technical subject at a level that assumes a researcher/professorial level of knowledge about the topic. Instead, you should try to write this to a level below, that perhaps a college student could understand. As it stands, the article is totally unreadable and therefore inaccessible to the vast majority of readers. One major problem is that people shouldn't have to read a series of articles to get the general idea behind a given article. Articles should be able to be read and understood generally without having to read multiple articles beforehand, even if they are on technical subjects.

Are quantum field equations in many Wiki articles are inviting? No. Most people even do not understand the specialized symbols, But not a word on this. People have respect to complicated math. But I write English, and going out of my way to avoid math formalism (whould be much easier to me to talk math), so everybody needs to understand in first reading. Right? Math and Physics background you get in school and possibly college. Still I assure you that many Wiki articles exist that we cannot understand beyond the intro without specific background. I see such regularly. Same here, and even simpler here since English, no math formalism. And the background is not high-school level: you have to deal with Math objects like graph, cycles in graph, schedule (article, my formal descriptions in English), Serializability, Recoverability. etc. and still be 100% accurate (I compromise on no less).

[the article] can be read by everybody who is willing to do some thinking effort. Like many tech Wikipedia articles it gives both the broad picture, particularly in the lead section and intro sections, and then all the details to an interested person and expert.

I respectfully disagree. The lead section is too long, it is laden with jargon, and the tone seems more applicable to a computer science conference or a scholarly journal article rather than a Wikipedia article. Even for someone putting in "some thinking effort" about this, this is bound to give them, at best, a headache. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now we are talking specifics, and this is good: my first real feedback. I'll try to see if this can be improved. You are talking about a subject not studied in first database course, and most people do not even get there. It is buried inside the systems though very important. Pls see my first in the hierarchy: Concurrency control. I know it is much more readable, and prepares you to the second: Serializability. This History article is in the bottom. Such hierarchy you see also in other sciences. But computers and databases everybody is supposed to easily understand. Is it easy? No. Is it a reason to drop it from Wikipedia.? No. If yes you have to drop, for example, Calculus of variation and Standard model, just to scratch the surface. Can this article be improved by feedback. I'm sure that yes.

--Comps (talk) 12:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be greatly surprised if any sources written by parties unconnected to Yoav Raz actually discussed this subject, the "history of commitment ordering". Normally, we would only split a separate "history" section from an article if there were sufficient secondary sourcing to allow for a fully-formed sub-article. That doesn't appear to be the case here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you it has been intensively discussed informally, and discussed briefly (with mistakes) in (Weikum and Vossen 2001). It is reference and quoted in the first section of History (after lead; I think Background section). Regarding "sufficient secondary sourcing", I quite do not understand since most of the refs in History are different from those of CO (almost all but Yoav Raz's CO papers). Most of them with different context. This is the reason to a separate History (or I completely misunderstood you) --Comps (talk)

Comment A big problem with this article is that it's written too much in the style of an academic article and not like an encyclopedic entry:

The section "Beckground" contains statements, such as
"The bibliographic notes, as well as other CO related text in the book, ignore the different ways the respective properties' definitions are utilized by the three evolvement threads (works), and the different results of each work (see below summaries of main results of each). Also, some theorems about CO given in the book are significantly weaker than what implied by the CO work, miss its essence, and again misleading."
These would be appropriate in a personal commentary by Yoav Raz, but not in an anonymous encyclopedic article (without being attributed to some previously published source).
The "Three threads of development" corresponds to a "Related Work" section in academic papers. But for an encyclopedia it has details that are perhaps better left in the corresponding articles. (Not to imply that these details would be appropriate in an academic article, the editors often enforce a page limit for good reasons.)
The section "Later utilization of CO" could also be written much more concisely, without losing much of its usefulness
The section "CO continues to be ignored in database texts" seems rather inappropriate.
The "See also" section contain a link to a Wikipedia talk page(!). Academic articles can often contain self-references, but User:Comps seems to have some difficulty grasping the fact that they are not appropriate in an encyclopedia.

—Ruud 11:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some people are used to use certain language, and see no problem until getting a comment. Thanks.
The three threads also include the CO work itself, not just related work. I have to give the details to validate claims made. Can it be done better? Very likely. This page gives me the first serious criticism.
I have to try.
I wonder. It expresses wondering about what is going here. I have to think about it. If people feel it is inappropriate no problem to remove.
I fully agree. This will be removed. I learned about this only this (or last) week from you. In Database. I understood the issue only after reading your pointed to article, and still a second place existed which was taken care of later.

--Comps (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep.(if vote will count - bouncing here quite long) Part of appear to be needed and useful. It is quite big but /find read it fast. (big +, not a problem) For few dozen people on Earth who may realty need it is worth to be preserved. Other voiced her concerns about references: beside superscripted contains plain text - what in this kind of art is need, useful and save time (more ref encouraged with quotes if possible). For writing such art more time have to be granted and 6 more month seem to be minimum. The delete at least should be postponed, but as vote let repeat keep. If by any chance delete may be planed, please say word, to allow dumping [special/export] of-line for arch purpose. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

99.90.197.87, This is the first time you have succeeded to surprise me for the better, and I thank you for this.

--Comps (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this rationale is mostly incoherent and sounds like a "keep it because I think it's important" rationale. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Commitment ordering is an important subject with lasting value and increased utilization. The Commitment ordering article itself is too large (and should be; the subject is large) to accommodate also its quite complicated history of evolution and utilization. Thus this separate article is very important for providing a reasonable complete picture of the subject. If the article itself is problematic in several aspect, it can be considerably improved according to the Wikipedia guidelines. This very page already provides valuable advice for improvement. It will be pity to just erase an important article, ~~developed with quite a lot of work~~. --Comps (talk) 14:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC) To some extent the articles are complementary, and the Commitment ordering article (and several others) link to this article and rely on it for some facts and examples. --Comps (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to note again that some of your arguments here are not doing you any favors. Articles are not kept simply because a lot of work has been put into them. It's unfortunate, but the whether an article should be kept is judged by how well it follows policy and guidelines, not how much time was put into them. Furthermore, you have repeatedly stated that because Commitment ordering is important, so is its history. Just because the history is long doesn't mean that the history is notable enough to merit its own article. Furthermore, while you keep inviting comments and revisions, the article is written in a way that makes it unapproachable. It is practically impossible to substantially rework the article because it can only be understood by experts like yourself, as you chose to write it this way. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 22:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"work has been put into it" was not an argument for keeping, just a side comment, and if bothers you, I'll strike it out. As I said earlier, we cannot understand many articles in Math and Physics, for example, if we do not have the background. Same here. We can get a good idea if we know what concurrency control is, but we need to understand Commitment ordering in order to understand this one, which is orthogonal but complementary to CO. Thus as Math and Physics articles like this (in term of depth and needed background) exist in Wikipedia, no reason that such in Concurrency control will not exist in Wikipedia. Such articles need to be evaluated by experts for content (not necessarily for shape). As I also said before I think that it is good that at least 1 expert (I) rather than 0, bothered to cover this hole in Wikipedia (by several articles in increasing depth and difficulty). The approach of "I do not understand it, thus delete it" is mistaken to my opinion since by this I can offer many good articles in many areas to be deleted.--Comps (talk) 07:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe I have completed all my comments by now. I thank you all here for your patience and insight. I hope to see this article stays and being improved. --Comps (talk) 14:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or stubify and rewrite. This is an academic essay and unsuitable for wikipedia. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The level of depth of this article is not higher than that of many Wikipedia Math articles. The theory of commitment ordering is just a specialized math, described here without Math notation. This is not an academic essay; the relevant academic articles are referenced in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.69.203.254 (talk) 14:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC) --Comps (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject does not have a long and varied enough history, nor enough significance, to warrant a separate "history of" subarticle. Google scholar finds only 117 articles that even mention the phrase; likely most do so in only a trivial way and some do so by coincidence to mean something else, so the actual number of significant works on the subject is even smaller. This is not the sort of number I would expect to see from a field of study worthy of having a history. Most of this is based on primary sources (the research papers that constitute the history itself); I think that sort of basis is ok for discussing technical subjects, but not for discussing the history of the subjects. Instead what is needed is secondary sources, independent of the primary authors of the works in question, that review the history, and we don't have such works, indeed the soapboxy article laments their absence. And merging into commitment ordering would be a mistake: what that article needs is a severe pruning, not yet more content. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is young, but has a quite stormy and interesting history, worthwhile being known widely, since Commitment ordering is now an important brunch of Concurrency control theory (described as one of the four major concurrency control methods in the book Bernstein and Newcomer 2009 (see in article). Searching Google scholar for the synonim ["commit ordering"] yealds 151 with many entried different from the search mentioned above and different from the source 6+ articles. Searching ["commit order" transactions] yealds 900+ with many relevant to CO, but also with some irrelevant to our CO subject. The lack of wider coverage is due to the long misunderstanding of Commitment ordering by many researchers. This is changing, and more and more it is referenced in academic articles and patents (sometimes with patent number only). The quite complicated interesting history accumulates to a quite long article. Merging is too long for a single article. The only additional history source I know is Weikum and vossen 2001, which suffers from some inaccuracies. What I find very attractive in Wikipedia is the ability to get into almost any subject and find detaled articles on it, with a wide coverage and key references. I do it daily. This article is not different, and provides a thorough coverage of the subject to interested people. --Comps (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge/Userify Properly belongs in the history section of Commitment ordering. Needs to be largely rewritten instead of simply merged, to be encyclopedic. Can be moved to user space if (and only if) User:Comps want to give an honest try at this. —Ruud 13:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the article itself says, Commitment ordering has been "to a great extent ignored in relevant database research texts". This is even truer of the history of the subject. When the relevant specialized community is ignoring a subject, wikipedia should do so too. Dingo1729 (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But many use CO, some with CO citation and some without. Thus the history is important, and ignoring it by some is highlighted. This has changed considerably in the last two years, and utilization and citation are increasing constantly.--Comps (talk) 00:19, 18 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 appear to have been addressed. reliable third party sources have been found to establish the subject's notability. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Riley Snyder[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Young actor on his way up, but not yet, I believe, notable with regard to WP standards. Initially I tagged the article to provide additional BLP sources because I felt the only half decent sources listed only mentioned this kid in passing as a cast member in the play being reported on. The only sources that actually have any 'meat' tend to be his hometown publications being proud of their boy. The creator of the article removed the tags stating "The article is sourced / If the sources aren't good enough for you then nominate the article at WP:AFD". So here we are, I don't like to disappoint. The Pink Oboe (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I removed the tags because every single part of the article is sourced. There are plenty of other sources confirming what the hometown paper reported, but it seems silly to "stack" sources just to keep verifying what is already proven; that he was one of the leads on Broadway for almost a year, was one of the co-leads in an "ensemble" cast of a critically acclaimed film (Variety made a point to single him out as the most compelling perfomer in a "superb" cast, as can be verified here), was honored with a Special Drama Desk Award for yet another New York stage production (as can be verified in the "awards" link on his IBDB page here), is one of the lead stars on Disney XD's #1 rated show of all time, etc, etc. I realize hometown papers aren't as highly regarded as The New York Times, but they do tend to provide more detailed information about a young stars background/bio, which is why I used the "hometown" paper instead of the larger New York papers. One other note - While sourcing the article I found numerous sources that credit him as simply "Dylan Snyder" (which is also the name of another child actor close to his age), so a simple google news search of his full "professional" name, "Dylan Riley Snyder", doesn't give a full picture of the coverage he's received - and searching the name "Dylan Snyder" is difficult to sift through which articles mention him versus the other child actor of the same name. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One follow-up note. I just noticed the article has been assessed as "C-class" by two separate editors for two different Wikiprojects. Presumably, if those editors had found some glaring notability/sourcing problems they would have mentioned something about it before rating the article a "C". --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although some of the proferred sources are not RS, a number of them are, and I think those are enough to support keeping this article. Crakkerjakk correctly notes that he is playing significant roles in these productions and is mentioned repeatedly in the reviews, for example, the Variety review of Life During Wartime singles him out as the top performer in that film. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He may not be Lionel Barrymore, but this article is better written than average, and better sourced than average. 78.26 (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's sourced. He appears in sourced productions. Why the aggro? Greglocock (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just a note - I readily admit a couple of the sources I used were primary sources from his website or his professional IMDb "Resume", but I was careful to use those as references for his background/early life and not to establish notability. Listing a few early commercial/modeling credits hardly appeared to me as his representatives "overblowing" his early experience, so I included it as the type of harmless "background" information his 13y/o fanbase would most likely find interesting. As far as his little "hometown" newspaper, The Tuscaloosa News - It may not be well known to those outside of Alabama, but it's part of The New York Times Regional Media Group and most certainly does qualify as a "reliable source". All of that notwithstanding, the one credit I believed established obvious "notability", regardless of anything else he'd ever done, is the Disney XD series he currently co-stars on. In the bio, I referenced a second Variety article that clearly states the sitcom is the #1 series in the network's history, and he's on it. I should think that, in and of itself, meets WP:Common sense "fan base" notability - rather than me having to cite a hundred silly "teen magazines" interviewing him about "what he looks for in a girl" or his "favorite flavor of ice cream". --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 02:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Happy to reverse my opinion from the 1st AFD, as his career has moved forward and the improved article differs significantly from the version that was deleted last July.[1] While the article is full of a lot of miscellania and could benefit from cleanup per WP:MOS, I find the career to finally meet WP:ENT and the awards to tweak nicely at WP:ANYBIO. The nominator and author's differences aside, addressable issues do not require deletion... they require discussion and addressing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Lol. I'd say "full of miscellania" is a big exaggeration, however, I agree - I cringe a little whenever I feel compelled to include info about a young star's "commercial" credits, "hobbies", etc, but I've written quite a few Disney Channel/Nickelodeon bios, so I try and keep in mind the average age of the readership of the article. While his early commercials and childhood hobbies most likely won't be an important part of his bio 20 years from now - 12 year olds eat that type of cr@p up - they can youtube his early commercials, be inspired put down the gameboy and take up one of the star's new "hobbies" themselves, etc.. As 78.26 pointed out, he's no Lionel Barrymore (what 14y/o is), yet Barrymore's bio is filled with "miscellania" (most of it unsourced), the only difference being - does anyone want to know whose feet Barrymore kissed as a kid? If we're going to suddenly start a cleanup crusade then there are about a million Wikipedia bio articles in much more desperate need of it than Snyder's, imo. At worst, Snyder's Benadryl and Chuck E. Cheese's credits are interesting to the average reader coming to his page and completely harmless to anyone else, whereas the childhood "foot kissing" factoid on Barrymore's page is just completely random and actually made me throw up in my mouth a little bit. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 06:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but we're not writing only for 12-year-olds, and those million Wikipedia bio articles in much more desperate need" are not the topic of this discussion. What I feel can be addressed through regular discussion and editing, and not a reason to delete, is the inclusion of minutae that have a sense of trivia. In Barrymore's case, his notability is such that folks actually wish to know such munutae. In Snyder's case, not so much. Good job though. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, but we're not writing only for foot fetishists either. While you may personally find Barrymore's childhood kinks "encyclopedic", I most certainly don't, so I maintain that sourced background info about an actor's actual career is far more encyclopedic than unsourced claims about whether Barrymore may have been "friends" with Jean Harlow or not. If you really feel the Snyder article is in such bad shape then we can have a long/protracted discussion/debate about it on his talk page, but we both know the Snyder article is better-sourced (and therefore better written) than the vast majority of bio articles on Wikipedia (Barrymore being just one "random" example I used since another editor threw his name out there), so it seems like a silly use of our time that we could be spending improving articles that actually need it. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I care little about Barrymore's diversions, but it does seem we do have "something" for those interested in such sport. In returning to the topic at hand, you're correct.. what can be discussed and addressed through regular editing, does not require a deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it seems we also have "something" for those interested in television commercials as well. Bottom line - I'm not the type to just roll over - so whenever there are editors with nothing better to do than tag/remove encyclopic information that is properly sourced based on their own imaginary double-standards about the subject's "notablility" then they're going to have a long/protracted "discussion" on their hands. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 02:59, 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. One two three... 20:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Joseph[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet criteria of WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC. Both references in fab are about four sentences long. I cannot find significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Google search for "Steven Joseph" "Sugar Treat" brings up mostly social networking and lyrics sites. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 22:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The "Steven Joseph Christopher" AfD is not relevant. ... discospinster _talk 22:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No citation for the charting of the album, and I was unable to find any listing for the EP on Billboard. The artist has little coverage in independent sources-- the coverage from fab is fairly sparse. I was unable to find any interviews or in-depth reviews of the artist's work. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Could find no coverage at all, either news or magazines, for his album. Nor could I find any coverage for his singles. His album links to Billboards Dance Albums charts, but this is misinformation, as it actually claims the album charted in Canada, which is not contemplated by the Wiki article. I'm not sure if any of the charts mentioned in article meet WP:BAND #2. 78.26 (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I scoured the internet to find sources for ANY of the claims made in the article for the last AFD, and found none. I believe it is safe to assume they are all false.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 21:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete No new information from previous deletion case aside from trivial mention by Morph Productions website, which does not even appear notable in its own right. Still no sources to support any iTunes chart claims. Completely fails notability guidelines. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 21:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BAND. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:34, 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 no consensus. One two three... 20:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-war Left[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is essentially entirely original research. While I don't deny that some left-wingers supported the Iraq war, and some people have used the phrases 'pro-war left' or 'decent left' to describe them (e.g. this opinion piece:[2]), there isn't any specific group or individual that identifies itself as such. As a result, virtually every statement in this article is unsourced and arguably unsourcable. Describing any specific person as being a member of the 'pro-war left' is arguably not neutral, if not an outright WP:BLP violation, since no one actually calls themselves 'pro-war'. (Compare this article with Liberal hawk, which is not brilliantly sourced but at least contains plenty of statements that could be.) Robofish (talk) 22:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that this article was previously nominated for deletion, and the previous discussion linked to a number of sources discussing the concept of the 'pro-war left'. While it may therefore pass the notability guideline, I'm still not convinced that a neutral, properly sourced article could actually be written on the topic. Robofish (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Euston manifesto? Maybe. Norman Geras? Perhaps. And of course there's the clearly notable, slam dunk Social-patriotism. But this topic is amorphous. Carrite (talk) 03:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article does not claim that the Pro-War Left is any particular identifiable group of individuals, or that they have any unifying or distinguishing beliefs. The article does not provide evidence of significant coverage in reliable source. Searches obviously turn up many results for "pro-war left" but none of them support the concept of them being an identifiable group within British politics capable of founding an encyclopaedic article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewwrite. Alternatively merge with the Euston manifesto. A real and notable phenomena and an identifiable group. JASpencer (talk) 06:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable - see The Left at War, for another example. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy and AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 09:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a bunch of OR, not an article about an actual distinct identifiable group of individuals.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The people who supported the Euston manifesto were very clearly defined because they signed it. Compare with Leftists, say, which covers a huge spectrum of people with quite fuzzy boundaries. That's a blue link, not a red one. Warden (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with linking the Euston manifesto here is that it wasn't specifically pro-war, nor specifically left-wing; insofar as it did express political views, they were all pretty vague. As such, it's a bit dubious to say anyone who signed it should be considered part of the 'pro-war left', although doubtless some commentators have made that characterisation. Robofish (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:36, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Current article has multiple issues, including OR, but the topic is notable. Could not be merged to Euston Manifesto, as that was not specifically "pro-war". Note, WP articles are not just about proper noun things like Euston Manifesto, but also has articles on, e.g. far left, ultra-left, soft left, liberal hawk, neoconservative, etc.BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:31, 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 redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Warry-Smith[edit]

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

Contested PROD; my PROD rationale was "Does not appear to meet the notability criteria for actors" and I still believe that is the case. This actor has had a number of minor roles in films and TV series, but nothing that meets the criteria in WP:ENT, and he also doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. bonadea contributions talk 21:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found some mentions of Warry-Smith as an actor in a Goosebumps series, but no interviews or in-depth coverage in news sources. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR, seems to have had notable roles in one notable series. The rest seem to be bit parts. Could find no significant biographical coverage. 78.26 (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Legend of Gator Face. While I think his sheer number of roles do approach WP:ENT and are verifiable,[3][4] no one has actually written anything about this fellow... leaving us BLP that tells us nothing but a verifable list of credits. Definitely someone who has kept a low profile. Searches for this fellow find mention of him for his lead role in The Legend of Gator Face,[5] so it serves the project to send readers to the one place where he has any minimal notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Perhaps some of Warry-Smith's roles could be mentioned in Gator Face article, to assist future editors who may come up with sufficient, sourced biographical info in the future. 78.26 (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources, or redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:37, 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 no consensus. One two three... 20:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reform New Zealand[edit]

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

Not notable. Not registered, has never run candidates, little independent media coverage to establish general notability. (Note: please be careful in discussing notability not to confuse this with the New Zealand Reform Party, which was a major political force in NZ during the early C20th IdiotSavant (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As article creator, I'd note this was one of the proposed centre-right replacement coalition partners for National in case ACT didn't make it past the ballot box on November 26.

However, that did not eventuate and I see the Reform website is dead.Calibanu (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)User Calibanu[reply]

Delete, the party did not register with the commission or contest an election during its very short existence. Mattlore (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep - Per:

Cheng, Derek (February 18, 2011). "New right-wing party now shopping round." New Zealand Herald.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article itself seems to prove that the subject is non-notable. However, if a second independent source with significant coverage is found, the article should be kept. 78.26 (talk) 01:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is an encyclopedia. Information on political parties belongs in encyclopedias. I favor the lowest of all possible barriers to inclusion for articles on political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections — if it exists, it should be in, just as we include insect species, villages, rivers, professional athletes, and TV stars without a second thought. This purports to be a splinter of ACT New Zealand, a party with 5 in parliament, I believe. From the get-go, that's nearly home-free, as far as I'm concerned. So does it exist? Yes it does, per this article in the NATIONAL BUSINESS REVIEW. The NZ HERALD is one of the biggest papers in the country. Hey, I'm already done. Articles on political parties belong in encyclopedias. Strong keep. Carrite (talk) 03:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I favour a low bar as well. But I just don't think this meets it. The party is defunct. Its website is dead, its faceBook page hasn't been used since April. Is a party which existed only for a few months, and not in any meaningful sense, really worth the mention? --IdiotSavant (talk) 04:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If the party never registered with the electoral commission or contested an election it is not, in any meaningful sense, a political party, and it falls within the normal rules for the notability of organisations. Which is to say, (a) significant coverage in reliable independent sources and (b) sufficient historical impact to avoid the provisions of WP:ONEEVENT. None of the above coverage is significant. (BTW, I should say that if I lose this argument, and the party is indeed notable, someone should probably get round to writing an article on me, as I fall in a similar but arguably better position.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Information on political parties belongs in encyclopedias. Aequo (talk) 06:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the sources given here, especially the NZ Herald, a national newspaper, are sufficient. As for DFW's point, one key difference between you and this party: you're a living person, so our standards for you would be higher. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Curses! :-) - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too trivial for inclusion. DerbyCountyinNZ

^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources need to be independent and non-trivial mentions. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As original creator of the entry, I acknowledge that the political entity in question was stillborn and agree to this entry's erasure. Perhaps some content could be adapted into a new entry on (say) National Party Coalition Partner Problems: 2008-2011, under a section marked Mooted Replacement Parties?

Calibanu (talk) 03:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)User Calibanu[reply]

or in [[[Don Brash]]] in relation to his takeover of ACT New Zealand. --IdiotSavant (talk) 03:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources have been found. The New Zealand Herald is independent. Dream Focus 01:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:N per sources Carrite found. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the article is deleted I propose moving the article to the WPConservatism Incubator, which is essentially the same as the userfy option, except it's in a central area, in the project namespace. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:50, 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. One two three... 20:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinary Kiwis Party[edit]

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

Not notable. Party never registered, has not run candidates, is now apparently inactive. No independent media coverage IdiotSavant (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Contrary to the statement in the nomination " No independent media coverage", coverage does exist:

"A Week is a Long Time in Politics". Scoop. 2011-08-30. Retrieved 2011-08-30.
"Registration of party logos". New Zealand Electoral Commission. 2011-10-19. Retrieved 2011-10-19.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not independent coverage. The first is a press release, and the second is the fact that the party registered with a logo. Political parties are not inherently notable. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the party did not register with the commission or contest an election. Anyone can register a logo with the commission so this does not make the party notable. Mattlore (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I should note that I am the President of the Ordinary Kiwis Party. The party is not inactive but has experienced difficulty getting media coverage since the official election campaigning period started 27 August 2011. Due to not gaining 500 members in time to be registered by Writ Day, a decision was made not to contest the 2011 election. Renewed activity is planned in the new year. JustSylvan (talk) 22:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This political party fails the GNG. The two sources listed by Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs) above are trivial or unreliable. "A Week is a Long Time in Politics" is noted as a "Press Release: Ordinary Kiwis Party". Press releases are not reliable. "Registration of party logos" constitutes trivial coverage. Nothing about the party is revealed except that it registered a logo. A Google News Archive search for "Ordinary Kiwis Party" retrieves zero results. Goodvac (talk) 23:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I favor the lowest of all possible bars for articles relating to political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections. If existence is verifiable, they should be in — because this is an encyclopedia and that's the sort of information that belongs in encyclopedias. That said, I'm not convinced this is a "real" political party. Someone has registered the logo. Somebody has issued a press release. That's still not clearing my very low bar, although I'd be very happy to advise a KEEP if some sort of minimal, tangible, real world existence can be demonstrated in a published source. Carrite (talk) 03:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why political parties have a special status among organizations. WP:ORGIN reads that "No organization is exempt from [the requirement of notability], no matter what kind of organization it is." I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Verifiability is not notability. The party has never registered, run candidates, or held a seat, and there is no significant coverage in reliable sources of its activities. Also, again, let me know if it gets kept, as it probably means I'm notable myself. :-) - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources need to be independent. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:13, 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. Black Kite (t) 00:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Central Mosque Wembley[edit]

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

Creator removed PROD. No sources to assert notability. Reads like an advertisement of services. Just a short history w/o references, and listing of services. Unremarkable so far. Alexf^(talk) 20:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has the makings of a good article; it has only just been created by a new user and just needs references. The article is about a place of worship and it is not an "advertisement of services". The creator of the article did not remove PROD Racklever (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: My confusion. Racklever removed PROD. Nomination still stands. -- Alexf^(talk) 22:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yes it may have a the makings the article might become good. But it also has no sources to assert notability. The article does sound like an advertisement of the Mosque and of its services. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 22:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm ... on balance, I'm going for a merge to Wembley. Most of this article is about the mosque's current activities, which doesn't really fit in with Wikipedia's format of documenting permanently notable information, but at least some of the information in the history looks worth preserving (assuming it can be verified). If necessary, it might be worth creating a new section on Places of Worship. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this was brought to AfD a mere two and a half hours after creation. Clearly no serious attempt has been made to seek good sources, which may not be readily available online. The article creator has made just three good faith edits on Wikipedia and now has been severely bitten. A note about getting better references would have been more appropriate. I have added the London and Islam projects and notified them about this AfD. Clearly a place of worship with a new capacity of 3,500 is likely to have some notability. I shall investigate better sourcing tomorrow. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to delete as I can find no sources on or off-line apart from directory entries and other passing mentions. I did attempt to clean up the article, but the creator refuses to communicate and is now introducing poor grammar. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to chop and change, but I have managed to find a few sources, although much of the information is still unsupported. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I tried Ghits, Gnews and Gbooks with no joy (at least not with "Central Mosque" Wembley), although I can't speak for non-online sources. I agree that a mosque of that size does need at least need a mention somewhere though. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've had a root around for sources and can't find anything more than a bare mention such as this:"On the corner, an Irish pub marks the start of Ealing Road, where mock Tudor and Georgian terraces rub shoulders with halal butchers and Bollywood video shops. Within 100 yards there is a Mosque, a Methodist church, a Baptist chapel and a Gospel centre." If we allow even a mention for the mosque then we should, per WP:UNDUE, also allow mentions for the other churches, the Irish pub, the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker. But Wikipedia is not a directory. Warden (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The importance of Islam in London cannot be doubted. The conversion of a large, historic church into a mosque is also important. What is needed is time to find the appropriate sources for a brand new article. Perhaps the sources are not in English. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's unlikely that the source is non-English, given the mosque is in London. Ratibgreat (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are several newspapers published in London in Modern Standard Arabic, including Al-Quds Al-Arabi, Al-Hayat, and Asharq Al-Awsat. I do not know the extent to which any of them cover news in London rather than the Arabic speaking world, but this mosque might well be covered. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The only way we can salvage the article is if the former church was notable. I'm sorry, but where I come from, every mosque has a 2,200 capacity, and almost none of them are notable. There are quite a few big churches in Bangladesh as well, but none of them are notable. Point - size necessarily doesn't assert notability. Ratibgreat (talk) 15:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The building was Grade II listed in 1993. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the conversion of the former church to a mosque is covered in Arabic sources, it seems to me that could make the mosque notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 22:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A new article should not be expected to have in-depth coverage by independent third party sources within a week of creation. This article should be kept long enough for editors seeking to improve or document it to do their work. Deletion should not be the fate of a new article before there is an opportunity to add inline citations from sources other than obvious online ones in English. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:02, 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 Speedy delete WP:CSD#G4 recreation of article deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ves (Music Producer). However, there is little point in salting, since doing so would have no effect on recreation under different titles, and also all the other incarnations of this article were made in 2009 by an editor who has not edited since. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VES (Music Producer)[edit]

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

Does not meet the standards of notability for a biography. Article creator appears to be subject of article. In response to PROD, article creator added non-RS sourcing (Wikipedia, Youtube). ScottyBerg (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Comment Note comments below. This article should be a speedy delete and salted per G4. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETE NN - Autobio. -- Alexf^(talk) 21:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a speedy delete. Just because the article is written by someone with a conflict of interest doesn't means it should be speedily deleted. There are sources here, but they both appear to be user-generated content, where anything could be said about the source without verification. What we require are reviews or information about the artist and their work from third-party, reliable sources. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 22:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. G4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ves (Music Producer) and salt, multiple recreations at different places to avoid scrutiny, Ves (Music Producer), Ves (music producer) and hijacking of Ves at here. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and SALT per duffbeerforme. Good find. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:37, 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. One two three... 20:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1-up[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Still an unsourced dicdef with loads of OR. Everything not related to Mario is unsourced, and I still don't see how it can be more than a dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Health (gaming) as H3llkn0wz suggested in the last afd. Concept is notable, but finding sources is problematic, and leaving it as a red-link is in my mind an unpalatable option. Trimming it down and covering it elsewhere, leaving the option available for the article to be SPLIT back out at a later date is probably the best option. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep We just had a keep about a month ago. Hobit (talk) 22:10, 9 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) 01:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - On 7 October the article survived AfD on the grounds it was poorly written but potentially notable. Since 7 October there have been no relevant changes to policy and the only changes to the article have been improvements. Were people to disagree with a procedural keep, I would nevertheless vote Keep as (a) even a cursory Google search provides overwhelming evidence of notability, (b) experience elsewhere has shown that where conventions of game design have become so ubiqitous as to enter pop culture they will almost certainly be able to support a well-referenced "History" section, if nothing else. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Health (gaming) per Umbralcorax. This concept is a subset of health which does not have enough material to support its own article. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is ridiculous! Once again, this editor didn't get his way in the first AFD, so renominates the same article again. It closed as keep on 7 October 2011. There really needs to be a rule against such nonsense. Dream Focus 18:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Dream Focus. Renominations for deletion of previously kept articles is unproductive. --143.105.13.115 (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above or transwiki to the dictionary. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per clear consensus to do anything but delete this notable term. --173.241.225.163 (talk) 22:26, 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. One two three... 20:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Palm[edit]

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

A TV news report in the small market of Presque Isle, Maine. Has been a TV reporter for seven years. No reliable sources outside of the TV station to be found. PROD was contested. Another reporter from the same station currently has an AfD ongoing. Bgwhite (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:27, 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, Jayron32 19:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Googled this and nothing reliable came up. not on google news or on reliable websites. sophomoric prank.Carlosiru smith (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. --Cox wasan (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of notability, fails wp:GNG for lack of coverage in reliable publications not directly related to the topic. Chris (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable reporter for a local news station. Local news reporters are almost never notable. --Madison-chan (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no news coverage of the subject but as he's a reporter, this is very common. If this were a larger market, I may be inclined to reassess my !vote but I can't see how even an WP:IAR argument can be made for a Keep. I really wish there was a better way to assess the notability of reporters and news sources themselves. OlYeller21^Talktome 15:08, 16 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. Mkativerata (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Bernard Day[edit]

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

This page was created following Day's nomination to a U.S. federal judgeship. When federal judges are confirmed, the Federal Judicial Center provides reliable info on them - U.S. district judges have therefore always been considered notable. Day's nomination was withdrawn by Obama today and he will therefore not be becoming a federal judge. I suggest deleting the page. Lincolnite (talk) 01:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I should clarify that Day is already an Article I judge (he serves as a U.S. magistrate judge) but that Article I judges are rarely covered on Wikipedia (they tend to be very obscure and the FJC doesn't maintain a database of them). By contrast, he was due to become an Article III judge (higher profile and covered by the FJC, hence the reason the page was created) but, following the withdrawal of his nomination, he will now remain an Article I judge. --Lincolnite (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article I judges are not inherently notable. His nomination to be an Article III judge has been withdrawn. He is not otherwise notable. Safiel (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Safiel. Hekerui (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Day's nomination was blocked, which qualifies him as a controversial nominee. Per notability guidelines, the fact that he was rejected does not make him inherently notable, but does put him in a different category than a nominee who merely withdrew (as typically happens en masse at the end of a president's term): "Nominees whose nomination is rejected by the United States Senate are not inherently notable; however, as the rejection of a nominee to such a position is a rare and politically important event, this is strong evidence of notability that can be established by any other indicia of notability...Nominees who withdraw, die, are withdrawn by the President prior to a vote on the nomination, or are returned by the United States Senate without being processed are not inherently notable. If a withdrawal from consideration is prompted by conflict over the nomination, which makes it tantamount to a defeat in the Senate, such a nominee is evaluated as though they had been rejected by the Senate." Billyboy01 (talk) 05:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, the problem with this approach is that, after reviewing the media, the Congressional Record and the Senate Judiciary Committee website, I can find nothing as to why this apparently well qualified individual has been denied even a hearing. With Goodwin Liu and others, there was a clear trail of controversy in the media and in the Congressional Record. Absolutely nothing for this guy. Whatever has held this guy up has been kept very quiet. To justify keeping him as a "controversial" candidate, means that we need to have some sources as to what the controversy was and frankly, we have nothing. We may never know what sank this guy's nomination. In light of the lack of such information or sources, I would continue to suggest delete. Safiel (talk) 05:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Liu was an appellate nominee who was widely seen as a possible future Supreme Court candidate, so it's not surprising that his failed nomination generated a longer paper trail than that of a district court nominee. What's clear is that Republicans went as far as blocking his nomination, something they didn't do for other controversial district court nominees such as John J. McConnell, Jr. and Edward M. Chen. Here's a source that confirms Republican opposition to his nomination: "Mikulski and Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) said in a joint statement that Republicans didn't allow the Senate Judiciary Committee to hold a confirmation hearing for Day". It's true we might never know why Republicans blocked Day's nomination, but the fact that they did certainly qualifies him as "controversial" (especially given that he had support of both of his home state Senators). Billyboy01 (talk) 06:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think Billyboy01 captured correctly the essence of this particular nominee and why he remains notable. Merely being a magistrate judge may not establish notability, but it gets a nominee a good ways there. Then, the fact that Day was blocked in a sort of pocket filibuster at the committee level suggests that something came up (in his background check, perhaps?) that Republican senators had a problem with. We may never learn what that is (although I hope we do). However, I think notability is clearly established if one marries the fact that Day is a federal magistrate judge with the fact that Day was blocked from receiving a hearing (a very rare occurrence in the Senate) *and* that that blockage ostensibly was why his nomination went down. Jarvishunt (talk) 10:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am on the fence about this one, but leaning towards keep. The American Constitution Society quotes NPR as saying, "Some of the longest waiting nominees, Louis Butler of Wisconsin, Charles Bernard Day of Maryland and Edward Dumont of Washington happen to be black or openly gay." Day happens to be black, the implication being that his nomination was stalled by racial animus, which would be particularly controversial. I also think that maybe we should adjust our guidelines to give additional weight to someone who, like Day, was actually twice nominated and still not confirmed. However, I also wonder whether we might find other indicia of notability for Day. According to his faculty profile at American University, he "was also a frequent legal commentator for CNN and other national television and cable broadcasters". If this article is not kept, this title should redirect to the appropriate section of Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Weak keep: What I'm hearing is that there's probably enough out there for him to pass GNG if nothing else. Failing that, redirect per BD Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 15:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per interesting historicity and WP:NOTPAPER. Dualus (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the information on Day should be moved over to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies as most of the important information relating to him is already there. Glo145 (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While it appears it is only typical that Article III Judges are notable (whatever that means, exactly), the fact that an individual has been nominated to that and NOT become one would, to me, contribute to make that person notable, see also comments by User:Billyboy01. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 05:24, 9 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, causa sui (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the NPR quote to the article. Cheers! bd2412 T 05:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Keep as above. Can the second sentence of the lede be replaced with "His nomination to a life-tenure, federal district court judgeship during 2010 and 2011 was blocked by Republicans" ? Or is there something I'm missing? (I'll admit to not understanding US politics). Stuartyeates (talk) 05:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that correctly sums up the politics, but is a somewhat inartful way of saying it. We generally do not reference the fact that federal district court judgeships are life-tenure appointments, I suppose because we presume that to be common knowledge. bd2412 T 21:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One two three... 20:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ONE Fighting Championship[edit]

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

New MMA organization that has only promoted one event. They don't meet the notability criteria at WP:MMANOT and there is no significant independent coverage.

I am also nominating the following related page because it is about the only event this organization has promoted and it fails to meet WP:SPORTSEVENT. Astudent0 (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ONE Fighting Championship: Champion vs. Champion

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Astudent0 (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This org and its first event actually generated quite a bit of coverage. It is unique because of the many partnerships it has developed with other Asian MMA promotions, and its institution of former Pride rules. It received international television coverage that far exceeded that of other first-time events. Both articles already have some sources. More can be added to demonstrate its notability. Not all of the fighters that competed are notable, but that doesn't mean that the event wasn't, particularly in that part of the world. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ONE Fighting Championship has already drawn millions of viewers in Asia, as Osubuckeyeguy notes. The amount of coverage in Asia also easily gets it notability with "Subject of multiple independent articles/documentaries--articles should be from national or international media, not just local coverage." Udar55 (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep organization, Delete event The article on the organization needs better sources (something beyond sherdog), but that's not a reason for deletion. At least, not when they appear to be out there. However, I found nothing to show the event passes WP:SPORTSEVENT. It appears to be just routine sports coverage. Papaursa (talk) 05:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep here's a selection of national newspaper and independent news coverage:

Taipei Times http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/sport/archives/2011/07/27/2003509241

Bangkok Post http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/sports/254778/yodsanan-has-a-go-at-mixed-martial-arts http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/sports/254778/yodsanan-has-a-go-at-mixed-martial-arts

MSN http://sports.xin.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=5455857

CNNGO http://www.cnngo.com/singapore/play/one-fighting-championship-fight-end-all-fights-347928

Channel News Asia http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1140900/1/.html

Today (Singapore newspaper) http://www.todayonline.com/Sports/EDC110903-0000300/A-show-on-the-cards-at-One-Fighting-Championship

There are hundreds more out there, these are just the first few I found.61.90.28.35 (talk) 09:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC) — 61.90.28.35 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete event All of the articles mentioned above are of the "local fighter will be fighting at ..." variety and none show the event has the lasting significance or importance required for notability at WP:SPORTSEVENT. Mdtemp (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given that the organization has only sponsored one event, merging the event details into the organization page seems very reasonable to me if the consensus is to not retain the individual event page. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean listing the event on the organization's page, that's fine with me. However, it looks to me like someone is planning on creating articles on the upcoming events as well and I don't believe any of the events qualify as notable enough for their own article. Astudent0 (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Osubuckeyeguy's masterful argument above. --143.105.13.115 (talk) 20:17, 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. One two three... 20:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aubrey Wentworth[edit]

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

Aubrey Wentworth is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Played by an actress who is known - yet the character has so far failed to generate any notability. Your google news search proves that no one wants to even report on the character, offer any opinion on her - most importantly - no notable storylines in any form of media.

Google hits? See a couple of searches on google news for her - nothing comes up - [6] [7] [8]

Sources

You have got ref 3 - Daytimeconfidential - citing something the character does onscreen - not that the source supports it of course.

Ref 4 - TV Guide - This articles only credible/reliable ref - yet it supports a in universe storyline sentence.

Refs 1 & 6 - these are primrary sources, they have to upload a character profile because that is their target audience - ABC needs to promote the characters, while About.com runs a dedicated soap section profiling all the characters that grace the screen - so nothing special about Aubrey having one.

The rest are from soapssheknows, everyones favourite place to get their inuniverse daily fill from - and true to form - they are all episode summaries - now we could make hundreds of articles is episode recaps actually said anything... they just tell the story off the small screen - while not providing any notability for Aubrey.

Further issues are:

No reliable sources providing notability - thus failing WP:GNG
Sources failing WP:RS
No real world information
Not in compliance with MOS:FICTION
An image with a poor rationale - a promo picture - yet the rationale does not explain why it is needed in the context of this article
Very inline with Wikipedia:Fancruft - Romances listed in the infobox - Yes, you can even find out who she has slept with and the exact dates it happens. And it even lets you know she is female. Then there is the handy plot bank so you can find out every single scene she appears in.
Poor prose
overly detailed for what it is

I requested that this page be merged originally, but no one offered any advice, after merging the backlash began - not even a reason - just restoring - I remove romance info, apparently it is crucial we notify readers of this info. The whole article is ran by IP editors who are not familiar with any guideline here - this article would be perfect for a Aubrey fansite.

The final - most crucial IMO - is that this serial is very low in ratings, so much so that ABC has axed the show, it won't be on the TV in a few months - which means Aubrey won't gain any notability - so there is no potential to build.RaintheOne ^BAM 03:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As highlighted by nom, the subject clearly fails GNG, and to a degree that even a merge is probably unjustifiable. Claret Ash 04:49, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wow, that's long nominating statement. We have articles on major characters on all of these horrible soap operas, is the deletion of this one going to do anything useful?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because other crap exists... Claret Ash 10:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, this comment misconstrues OTHERCRAP.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness knows how. You made reference to similar articles (an ATA) so I responded by reminding us all of the subjectivity of doing so which, I believe, is the gist of OTHERCRAP. Claret Ash 15:06, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the point I made was she isn't a "major" character - so actual "major characters" having articles shouldn't come into play. Deletion will remove a non notable subject from wikipedia - useful.RaintheOne ^BAM 14:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The character needed sources, and I added valid sources to support the character's story lines. I agree the character was lacking at first, but I was able to show that she is notable and part of the show's central landscape. The character has become a central part of the show and just because the show is cancelled (on television only - it is moving to the Internet in January 2012) should not be a factor in the decision of whether the article is kept or deleted. That is the NOT the "most crucial" in this decision because even if the show were completely cancelled that does not wipe away the character's notability as if it never existed. Romances should remain because like every other soap article, it demonstrates the character's history. That is part of an encyclopedia, to give information on a subject and romances are information of importance to this character and article. All of the "issues" listed above are ill-listed because the article demonstrates notability and everything included is essential for the article and without it, takes away from its value and importance. The character is well-known and has become a major part of the show and her notability has already been built. Should the character's information in the article be re-written, yes, it should. Should the article be deleted, absolutely not. You see, articles need to be improved before there is no hope at all where they should be deleted. This article is by no means that bad and can be thoroughly improved. Casanova88 (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You demonstrate a serious misunderstanding of Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia - notable things get included here. So because your POV is "The character has become a central part of the show." you think she should be one here. Not the case. The sources you added are either primary or fansites - over all they are episode summaries and character profiles! It really shows you up that you say it is important to inform the general reader that Aubrey Wentworth had a one night stand and dated another character - Romances is only one percent of the problem - just like Romances - the whole thing is mere trivial character plot. Failing WP:GNG.. The show being cancelled does play a part, because it indicates less chance of ever gaining notability. Your in-universe editing style is making the article worse off.RaintheOne ^BAM 18:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added sources that support the character's notability. Yes, the character is a central part of the show and that indeed warrants an individual article. Romances are a part of the character and that is crucial for the article because it lists the people the character interacts with and is important as part of the character's history. Who is Victor Newman without listing Nikki Newman under romances, for example. They are a part of one another's storylines and are important to include in infoboxes, and this character should be no different. I demonstrate enough understanding of Wikipedia, especially when it comes to the fact that a cancellation of a show does not and should not factor into an article deletion of a show itself or a character. The ending of a show does not mean a character cannot be established. This character is already quite established and the cancellation should not be held against the character. That excuse is not valid at all. Casanova88 (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the character is not notable on Wikipedia - if the show is cancelled - that means the character won't gain more notability. Simple really. In your opinion she is centrel to the show. Find me a source to back up your point of view...RaintheOne ^BAM 14:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see extreeme salvagebility hare, enough information is givin that even if we must weed out parts of it that are not properly citated, enough could be kept for a properly referenced stub or Start-class article that would pass the WP:GNG. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we want a non-notable stub article with no potential of expansion? Confusing. I'd also like to pointt your that your idea would not pass WP:GNG because a stub won't have significant coverage, the sources will still be unreliable or primary, so without that means there won't be enough establishes the presumption that she is notable, so no chance of a guarantee she is. There it will not pass the "General notability guideline" like you claim.RaintheOne ^BAM 18:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge The article is little more than a plot synopsis and fails WP:GNG and WP:FICT. Personally I think the article should be merged to an appropriate character list, where it can be built upon if she becomes more notable. Being a regular or "central to the show" does not automatically qualify the character for an individual article. Having reliable sources and real world information does. - JuneGloom Talk 23:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I do not believe that there is objective evidence that the fictional character meets the general notability guideline or that the article can be anything other than a plot-only description of a fictional work. Jfgslo (talk) 03:42, 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Embrace your inner pop-culture cruft. Sourcing showing is sufficent, in my opinion. Don't confuse the dual functions of Wikipedia: serious encyclopedia and pop culture compendium. Carrite (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Milowent. --173.241.225.163 (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, this isn't a vote. If you're so keen for the article to remain, I suggest you clarify your preference with reference to whether or how the article meets or can meet WP's standards. I also suggest you re-read the above discussion as you might find that User:Milowent hasn't stated any preference. To make the statement you did could be considered misleading. Claret Ash 09:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that the IP is a sock that only contribs to AFD's... Anyway, I've put a request for comment over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television.RaintheOne ^BAM 10:56, 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, causa sui (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - Look, the sources in the article aren't reliable sources, and there's no evidence of her being notable independent of her show. The article probably SHOULD be deleted. Nevertheless, after being listed for two weeks and attracting eight !votes, it should be clear that regardless of the merits of the argument there is no community consensus to delete, and I can't see any possible chain of events that results in a majority of the policy-based contributions to this discussion agreeing to deletion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you misunderstand. First of all, this isn't a vote, it's a discussion. That means that the quantity of votes is of less importance and the merits of the arguments, despite your statement suggesting otherwise, are of greater. Consequently, if we examine the arguments properly, we see that all arguments in favour of keeping the article have been refuted. Second of all, I don't know where you see eight votes. If you'd read the discussion properly, you'd see that one of the keep "votes" (by an IP) was misleadingly based on another user's comment and, with no further argument put forward, can't seriously be considered. Additionally, I don't understand why you've prefaced your own comment with the words "procedural keep". You concede the sources are unreliable; you concede the subject's lack of notability; you concede the need to delete the article: this does not equate to a keep argument, let alone a "procedural" keep. Claret Ash 08:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I'm saying is that, drawing from a long experience with AfD, there is no way that, at this point, this discussion is going to reach a policy-based consensus to delete. Whether or not that's the right outcome, it's just not going to happen. Even if several editors immediately turned up and all voted delete, the increased activity is going to draw the attention of more policy-based keep votes. As a matter of practical management of the project, keeping this discussion open will serve no useful purpose and wastes the energy of editors who could be identifying pages more clearly in need of deletion. Long AfDs breed conflict in the community, rarely result in a deletion, and only enhance the project if a matter of fundamental principle is being intelligently examined. Close the AfD as "no consensus to delete", move on, and renominate in two months if you think it's still an issue then. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - First of all, I apologise if my previous tone seemed harsh. Regarding this AfD, though, although I understand your view (thank you for clarifying), I just don't think it applies in this case. When I look at the article, I see a minor character being talked up as more than what she is. So, by all means, let's close this discussion, but with an outcome of delete. After all, the strongest keep argument so far appears to be yours. All the others have been refuted or are based on opinion rather than policy. Claret Ash 12:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a substitute for websites dedicated to soap operas. This character is obviously non-notable, especially when the ratings of soap operas have become very low nowadays. She appeared for one year, and the show will be off the television for a few months; let's not get into internet transfer, all right? The fact that she has major (non-notable) storylines does not help the article stand on its own. --Gh87 (talk) 10:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable due to lack of RSs. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:44, 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 no consensus. One two three... 20:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian Consulate General, Houston[edit]

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

This article does not meet the GNG - there is not significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Of the 7 sources currently listed, 3 are directly related to the consulate, 1 is a map that verifies the consulate exists, 1 is a map of an office building, 1 is an article about the Norwegian consulate in Minnesota which has 2 sentences on the consulate in Houston (trivial coverage), 1 is an article about Norwegians in Houston which mentions the consulate only in passing (trivial coverage). Karanacs (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator Karanacs (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Let's look at the Chronicle source: http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2008_4610819
The quotes show that the consulate, or the "incubator" building that houses the consulate gets significant coverage
"Counting on business growth of expatriates, the Norwegian government is starting a business incubator for its citizens in Houston. "
"The Norwegian government is expanding its consular offices into a new building. "
""This is an indication how important we feel Houston is for Norway," Seim said of the building, which will also house the consulate's office. The incubator organized by the consulate and Innovation Norway will help foster small businesses and medium-size businesses. Small Norwegian companies that invent products or want to do business in Houston will operate out of the incubator's Montrose-area building. "
WhisperToMe (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those sentences are focusing more on the project that Norway is undertaking. I don't see any way these three bullets are more than trivial coverage. Karanacs (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:ConsulateNorwayHoustonTX.jpg - This is the project. It's meant to coordinate the activity between the Norwegian government (consulate) and several Norwegian businesses. The article discusses the consulate itself and the building which is the "project"

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Reliable Sources, and arguments of User:WhisperToMe. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What reliable sources? The one source that barely mentions the consulate? Karanacs (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above - or, if Embassy of Norway, Washington, D.C. is created, merge/redirect there. Neutrality^talk 23:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because useful to readers and inherently notable per WP:ORG and WP:NOTPAPER. Dualus (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't reasons to keep. See WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:EVERYTHING. Also, where's the reliable sources treating this in depth? Sure, WP:ITEXISTS, but that doesn't mean its notable. And WP:ORG - the page you link to - explicitly states: No inherent notability. Neutrality^talk 23:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This one: http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2008_4610819 - There is significant coverage related to Norway House, which is a joint project between the consulate and "Innovation Norway" - To make this clear, using the quotes I found above and some more content from this article, I expanded the article WhisperToMe (talk) 11:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is significant coverage on Norway House, which is a project of the Norwegian consulate and "Innovation Norway" - Not only did the consulate help organize it, but it moved its own offices into the building. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage from independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:GNG despite this AfD existing for several weeks no one has cone up with evidence of significant in-depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 11:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now that reliable sources discussing the consulate have been found. Pantherskin (talk) 22:04, 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. One two three... 20:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel the Power[edit]

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

Future album without third-party references. Does not express notability per WP:NALBUMS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Some limited coverage of the album's future release in these smaller review/rock music websites: ([9] [10] [11]. I'd rather this one wait until it is actually released and then reviewed in-depth. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:42, 9 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, Jayron32 19:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP: CRYSTAL. There's not likely to be enough references to build a decent article until the album is actually released, anyway. Delete it for now, and when and if the album meets WP: NALBUMS, put together a decent-to-excellent article for it.--Martin IIIa (talk) 19:20, 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. One two three... 20:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Introduced error[edit]

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

Original research, based on a single paper by the page author. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does anyone else think this might be a hoax? The wikilinks to project management and organizational hierarchy are strange and the entire article is - at least to me - practically incomprehensible. Patent nonsense, or is that a bit strong? --Northernhenge (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that the comprehensibility is a bit lacking, but I don't think it's a hoax. I think it's just a guy using Wikipedia to push his original research. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally non-notable neologism. The article is indeed quite incomprehensible. Also no significant ghits on "Petry Dish Method" or "Carney Method". --Lambiam 23:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't understand the comprehensibility arguments. I understand the article and have learned something useful by reviewing it. It is definitely not patent nonsense. Furthermore, poor quality is not a valid justification for deletion. There are problems with the refs (I have added a tag). Notability is not clearly established but perhaps that will be addressed when the refs are fixed. Article is just over a month old and deserves more time to develop. --Kvng (talk) 12:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A few of us have already looked for references. Good luck finding any; this is strictly original research from a non-notable technical writer. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NEO Stuartyeates (talk) 05:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I concur with Kvng in that the article is comprehensible, but I am not convinced that the concept is notable. Heck, I've used this technique myself. It involves the deliberate introduction of fabricated information presented to subject matter experts who are responsible for reviewing documentation for publication. They get all huffy about how bad it is and then point out all the mistakes and provide corrections. Voila! You now have a proofed document to publish. -- Whpq (talk) 14:27, 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 redirect to Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse. Black Kite (t) 00:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Satar Jabar[edit]

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

There is only one source, from 2004, that remains claiming that Satar Jabar is the person in the photo of a hooded man on a box with wires attached. Other mentions have been updated to remove this name from the attribution. There is no evidence a man named "Satar Jabar" was held as a prisoner in Iraq. An extensive search performed on ProQuest Newspaper database revealed no verifiable sources for this person existing, much less attributing the person in the photo is him. Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Satar Jabar#Reason for deletion for more detail. Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here is an article in the English online edition of Der Spiegel discussing the identity of the man in the picture. If it is true, as is stated there and seems plausible, that several prisoners underwent this treatment, then it may be hard or impossible to identify the specific prisoner in this particular photograph, and about equally hard to conclusively rule out putative subjects. The name Satar Jabar is a plausible search term, though, and should not be just a redlink. --Lambiam 21:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rename There does appear to be enough confusion about who is actually in the photograph among reliable sources to make it troubling (for BLP reasons at the least) to have an article that asserts Satar Jabar is the person in the photograph. Another route besides deletion would be to rename the story 'The Man in the Hood' or some such and discuss the controversy around it - it's certainly a famous photograph and a notable topic, but the story really can't assert the subject's name as fact. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse on BLP grounds; plausible search term, though. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of protocol here since I started the discussion, but I would support an article about the photo with a See Also to Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse. And I'd be fine with just a redirect to same. Mnnlaxer (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a page on the event. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per most of the above, with a nod to WP:BLP1E thrown in. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Alright, that's good for me. I will redirect to Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse. Do I need to do anything with this page?~~ Do I wait until an admin redirects? --Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:52, 17 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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vilmar eddy hilberg-jacobsen[edit]

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

notability MorganKevinJ^(talk) 17:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7, borderline G11 as well. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:12, 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 speedy deleted. Blanked by author, garbage anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walnut Rage™[edit]

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

Obviously needs deletion. Jab843 (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom and common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joefridayquaker (talk • contribs) 17:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with speedy delete. Original author posted a likely fabrication, then deleted it. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kamen Rider Series. Can always be reinstated if suitable sourcing is found. Black Kite (t) 00:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kamen Rider SD[edit]

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

The only source currently cited on this article is the Anime News Network, which is a website that contains user-submitted content and is consequently, like the Internet Movie Database, not a citable source. A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for manga. Neelix (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: OP is a little imprecise; ANN's encyclopedia is user-generated and that is what is linked. CSE hits for 'Kamen Rider SD'. --Gwern (contribs) 17:44 9 November 2011 (GMT)
Keep: There is an extensive page at the Japanese Wikipedia on the subject, and the Japanese title gets more coverage. These 4 different manga, 3 different video games, and 1 direct to video movie are most definitely notable. Due to the age of the subject matter and the source language, however, it is difficult to find reliable sources for it. The fact that it is a subset of a notable and popular media franchise, this particular instance should be as notable as its parent topic.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:35, 9 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) 01:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator - Notability is not inherited. As Wikipedia's notability guidelines state, "there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability." Other language Wikipedias are not valid sources and it appears that the Japanese Wikipedia's article on this subject is entirely unsourced. I also fail to see any reliable, secondary sources among those that appear in the Google search link provided by Ryulong above. Neelix (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there some sort of leeway when a subject is 20 years old and there are no digital records regarding the notability? Surely, something that includes eight different pieces of media and being created/inspired by a Guinness World Record-holding author implies some notability.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kamen Rider Series. Jtrainor (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this is one of these cases in which we must consider, as said in the guideline, "not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article", because "notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation". Here, notability (and existence of reliable sources) could be easily presumed, considering its direct membership in an hightly notable franchise, an eight-year-long saga that has generated four different manga, published by notable/well-known editors and notable/well-known magazines, 14 books, 3 different video games for three different well-known video game consoles, one OAV (that passes WP:FILM for itself) animated by Toei and with music production provided by Columbia Music Entertainment, action figures, board games, trading cards and more merchandise. As said by Ryulong, due to the age of the subject matter and (mostly) the source language, it is obviously difficult to find sources for it.--Cavarrone (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The quotation cited by Cavarrone above is taken out of context. The relevant guideline goes on to say "However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." The name of this section of the notability guidelines itself is called "Notability requires verifiable evidence". It is true, as Cavarrone states above, that notability does not require sources currently named in the article, but it does require verifiable evidence, ie. specified sources whether they are currently cited in the article or not. No one has managed to produce any such sources in this article's more-than-five-year edit history, and considering that no one is managing to produce any even when pressed to do so in this AfD, it appears highly unlikely that any such sources will ever be produced for this article. Neelix (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neelix. The subject is going to be 20 years old. I know it's rare, but nothing within the past 5 years of the proliferation of the Internet has produced anything we can find to support the fact that this is notable. I didn't bother with the Kamen Rider Black manga or the Kamen Rider Eve/Masked Rider Gaia manga. However, this has eight different media forms, one of which was a notable film. This will not be deleted.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To keep a stub article on Wikipedia that has no possibility of expansion and for which no reliable, secondary sources can be found is to go directly against Wikipedia's guidelines. Neelix (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is only a stub because I removed excessive plot detail regarding the OVA. It could very well expand, to include chapter titles of the various manga, more indepth information about the various video games, and perhaps some more information about the OVA. I am still trying to figure out why you have been systematically hitting various Kamen Rider pages. While they may have not all been the best pages, you have been hitting pages that are difficult to find sources for, and should very well be determined notable by being various official offshoots of the main notable franchise.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of the information that you are suggesting that could expand this article is sourced in reliable, secondary sources. The Kamen Rider Series is a notable franchise, and many of the subtopics of this franchise are also notable. The notability of the franchise as a whole does not justify the creation of individual articles on the minute details of the franchise that have not garnered coverage in reliable, secondary sources. As I have stated previously, notability is not inherited. The guidelines are quite clear. Neelix (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does the fact that this page (now) covers 4 different comic book series, 3 unrelated video games, and one short film mean nothing then? This is not a minute detail. It is an aspect that cannot be adequately incorporated into any of the parent articles. And sources do indeed exist. They are just impossible to come by because it has been 20 years since the subject first came out. It is very likely that in the ancient copies of Televi-Kun, Televi Magazine, Hyper Hobby, Newtype, etc., there are articles on the SD Kamen Riders. However, it is not possible to recover these.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage from independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As a repeated comment, just because it lacks them now does not mean it completely lacks sources. They exist. They are just impossible to come by because:
  1. The subject is 20 years old, and
  2. The subject is Japanese
- It needs work. It does not need to be eliminated entirely.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no proof that such sources exist. Simply stating that they exist does not demonstrate that they do. Sources that are impossible to come by, as you have stated these to be, are not sources at all, because they cannot be used as such. Neelix (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The subject is notable. It is a notable offshoot of a notable franchise. The age of the subject makes it nigh impossible to find sources online. There are most definitely books and magazines that came out throughout the 90s that feature this, but they cannot be found easily. Why is that an issue?—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an issue if they can be found, but no one has been able to do so in the five years that this article has existed, which leads me to believe that they don't exist. My personal search has turned up nothing. Neelix (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well neither of us exactly has access to 20 year old Japanese newspapers or children's magazines, now do we?—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:51, 16 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 Reanimation. This is a non-admin closure. OlYeller21^Talktome 15:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frgt/10[edit]

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

No confirmation of release, no charts. Calabe 1992 16:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ The single apparently did not have a public release, and was a promotional single released in Mexico ([12], [13]). I have revised the current page to reflect that. However, the video information is already mentioned on the general album, Reanimation. The single is also not listed on the band's website. While Linkin Park is certainly a notable band and we generally keep all albums produced by notable bands, it doesn't seem important to include a minor, promotional album that didn't get coverage on reliable, independent sources, and is not covered by the primary source, either. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 22:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Reanimation, the parent album. I can not find sufficient coverage in reliable sources to support an individual article for this single, which does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:SONGS. The latter guideline states that non-notable songs "should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." Gongshow ^Talk 17:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Reanimation per Gongshow. Striking my support for deletion above. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Enth E Nd/Frgt/10.--Gbuvn (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to In the End. Tone 21:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Enth E Nd[edit]

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

No confirmation of release, no charts cited. Calabe 1992 16:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to In the End, the original version of the song. 109.154.73.97 (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Any reliably sourced information can be appropriately added to the "In the End" article, which already mentions this remixed version of the song. Gongshow ^Talk 17:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Enth E Nd/Frgt/10.--Gbuvn (talk) 18:47, 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. One two three... 20:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of species of animals[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)

Such an article could never be complete enough to be useful, given the enormous diversity in the kingdom. The only way to list all animal species would be to divide the list up, in which case this article becomes redundant to lists of animals. Stemonitis (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Although technical compliant with WP:NOTESAL, this list is a classic violation of WP:IINFO. The term animal in the context of a WP list could only be more indiscriminate if it was changed to every living thing. A variety of sources indicate there are from 2-15 millon species in the Kingdom Animalia. That would make for a very long list. I have created many a list of animals (List of non-marine molluscs of Montana for example) but I think if I tried to add the 197 animals in that list to this list, someone would say Whoa. This was created by a new editor whom I will engage directly with some advice. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a laudable effort, but unfortunately it is pretty much as impossible as having a 'list of things'. There are just too many species for this to ever be complete or readable. Also, sublists already exist. 109a152a8a146 (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article creator should be encouraged to add this material to existing lists of more manageable size. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The user who created this article also created the similar List of animal species and subspecies. Perhaps that list should be added to this discussion. Calathan (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Impossible scope.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 03:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both due to unmanageability, then redirect to Lists of animals. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, for the approach is unsuitable--it could better be defined as "list of commonly known animals", and is at a level appropriate for a pre-school encyclopedia. I do not consider a proper list here would be impossible. There are now known about 1.4 million animal species (the actual number is generally considered to be about 10 times the number known)--in principle we will have a page on each of them, and could make an alphabetic list .There are reasons why someone might want to browse an alphabetic list. And in fact there is one available outside WP: you can browse Encyclopedia of Life that way, though it is a very inefficient display, which could be made much more compact; it really wasn't meant primarily for browsing, and we could do better using EOL data. Additionally, since all species names are binomials, a practical alphabetic list could be by genus. And there are in fact such a list Nomenclature Zoologicus] (print and online) The technique in Nomenclature Zoologicus is a little complicated: do not use browse, which looks at each chronological volume separately, go to advanced search, enter a somewhat truncated name with an asterisk, and specify exact search. -- I know it seems odd to specific exact when you want to browse, but that's how it works -- e.g. this search for Eug*). NZ is unfortunately not linked to species, though it could be linked to EOL in principle. DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

incidentally, the nearest equivalent page on Wikipedia is not Lists of animals, but the list found in the article [[Animal] DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Not because it's non-notable or not encyclopedic, because it's just too broad of a topic to be useful or manageable. --Madison-chan (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)Madison-chan[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch My Arse Rock[edit]

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

I don't see any source for this that doesn't derive from the Wikipedia article, and I don't think I accept the truth of Google Maps (which places this in a forest with little sign of rock). Drmies (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The place is on the topographic map. +mt 17:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice find, and a lot more convincing than the Google stuff I found. I cannot, however, access any kind of information pertaining to the site owner--http://linz.govt.nz doesn't pull up anything (that's from the readme). "govt.nz" certainly inspires some confidence--do you have anything else to offer? And while you're added, got any sources for the claims in the article? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, I'm considering taking off from my job for a year. Drmies (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll keep my eye out at the library to get better info ... there's lots of books about Cook Islands at the Wellington Library (e.g. [14]). The Cook Islands are real nice; been there once (although not to Palmerston), and I'd easily go back. +mt 07:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Send us a postcard, while you're scratching your arse over there living the high life. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think it's real. I've found this listing for it. LadyofShalott 03:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This page claims as its source "National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, Bethesda, MD, USA". LadyofShalott 03:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bingo! It's in the database you can seach here for the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. LadyofShalott 04:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK--do you have a button that quickly closes this as a keep? Good work, Drmies (talk) 05:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I won't close an AfD in which I've participated - even when it's a clear case of nominator withdrawal. I'm sure somebody else will come along soon and take care of it for you. LadyofShalott 23:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage from independent third party sources. Mentions in a database don't equal in-depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- One of Wikipedia's explicit functions is as an almanac. I don't think we require extensive independent coverage on all geographical locations. LadyofShalott 15:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have to agree with the Lady. Now that it's established that it's a geographic location, noteworthy enough to be included on maps and in databases, it's pretty much a closed case, and no significant discussion need be found. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography isn't very active, but I'll drop a note there later: as far as I'm concerned, this is an instance of automatic notability. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can you tell me where this "explicit function" is recorded? Also, we have had debates at WP:Scotland about the lengthy lists of articles about tiny settlements and the debate has always revolved around their notability rather than their existence. I am not aware of any policy that states that geographical locations, no matter how trivial, are granted "automatic notability". Curiously yours. Ben Mac Dui 08:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are times when something or someone is presumed to be notable regardless if it has in-depth coverage. If multiple, reliable sources say this place exists, then it should be kept. btw, from google maps, there appears to be people living on it. Bgwhite (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I am mistaken you are looking at Palmerston and that the subject of the article being considered here is an uninhabited skerry. Ben Mac Dui 08:59, 16 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.

Paul Pless[edit]

The result was Merge. A speedy merge to University_of_Illinois_College_of_Law#2011_Restatement_of_Numbers, considering the BLP1E comments and agreement between article creator, AfD nominator (me), and one other editor. There are no keeps--technically, I'm withdrawing the AfD with thanks to all involved. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I was asked to look at this for BLP concerns, and I have those as well: we have a classic example of BLP1E (since I don't believe that assistant deans, or even deans, have automatic notability) here in what appears to be a name-and-shame article. That the subject was previously a "bit player" in another scandal doesn't alleviate the "one" in BLP1E, and if there is nothing else for which the subject is notable, it should be deleted. I'd speedy this if it weren't written somewhat neutrally; I'd like to see it resolved quickly. If the ARS comes along (and they are of course welcome) I'd urge them to consider the real-life implications of Wikipedia articles. Drmies (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University of Illinois College of Law#2011 Restatement of Numbers per WP:BLP1E. No need for a separate article on the perpetrator. Qwfp (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks: I could live with a redirect, given this plethora of news articles. WP:BLP1E allows (even suggests) a redirect, so that would be fine with me. Drmies (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am the author of the article. I didn't know about the BLP1E policy, and if I had I probably wouldn't have written the article. I think Pless might be an important figure in retrospect if the ABA decides to verify more data from schools (which will almost certainly reveal more discrepancies) or employment data begins to be more scrutinized. But, if that happens, we can always recreate the page. Therefore, I'm voting we merge to University of Illinois College of Law#2011 Restatement of Numbers per Qwfp's suggestion. --MonsieurKovacs (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Monsieur, I hope you noted that I remarked on the neutrality of your writing. "Name and shame" is not intended as a stab to you. Recreating in case more relevant stuff comes out (that is, if the person acquires more notability) is indeed easy and actually isn't even recreating--it's overwriting the redirect. You know what, since you agree, and I do, and a third editor does, and there are no keeps I'm going to go ahead and pull the AfD, and merge the article. If anyone has a problem with that, it can be undone, but this would be a time saver, I think. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 17:46, 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 speedy keep; nomination withdrawn and there are no outstanding delete !votes. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Nozik[edit]

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

I have been unable to find sufficient sources to demonstrate notability. PROD was removed with the argument that "[Prof. Nozik] surpasses WP:PROF criterion 1 and WP:GNG by miles", but I can't find any evidence of this. He has certainly produced a considerable body of work (see hits in gscholar), but doesn't appear to have been widely commented on in independent reliable sources, which are the requirement for WP:PROF1 and WP:GNG. Open to an early close if such sources are provided, and will withdraw nom if that happens. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn Yunshui 雲‍水 14:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could start by looking at the search results automatically linked by the nomination process. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Seems to me to easily pass WP:prof - loads of well cited papers (H index >40?), served as senior editor of Journal of Physical Chemistry , is a Fellow of the American Physical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. (Msrasnw (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Speedy close, nomination withdrawn I am a prize idiot - there are ample hits in gnews, but they're all in the achives - which I, for some reason, hadn't checked. Withdrawing nomination per considerable news coverage, and will willingly accept a much deserved ((trout)). Yunshui 雲‍水 14:48, 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. v/r - T P 15:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bean Sheet[edit]

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

A spreadsheet for that I didn't found any reliable, independent reference. Seems not notable. mabdul 11:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC) Oh and this project seems dead and not longer developed, nor does it have any high download rates at SF. mabdul 11:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced, no indication of notability, created by an SPA so possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage from independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:51, 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. v/r - T P 15:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Reaction Project (EU Project)[edit]

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

DePRODded article. PROD reason was "More Eurospam. No independent sources. No indication of notability. Does not meet any notability guideline including WP:GNG." This still holds, hence: Delete. Crusio (talk) 11:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: some miscellaneous notes on this kind of projects (not necessarily all applicable to this case) can be found here. --Crusio (talk) 11:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was up before deletion before and then I added more sources and text and was then approved, please be more specific about what is missing or should be removed. It's hard when it is your subjective opinion that has added this to deletion and you are referring to general rules, no one has complained about the article in 11 months. What does "Eurospam" mean? I've searched for the meaning of the word but could not find it anywhere. --Povlsen —Preceding undated comment added 12:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Comment As far as I can see, the article was "PRODded" before (which you removed yourself). There has not been any prior deletion discussion and there has never been any "approval" of the article or of any edits to it. The fact that nobody complained about the article in 11 months does not mean that it is "approved" or something like that (there is no "approval" mechanism on WP). Eurospam is indeed a neologism that has come to be used here in the last few months ("Eurospamcruft" is another one) to indicate articles on otherwise non-notable projects that keep being added to WP. Please understand that "notable" as used on WP has nothing to do with good/bad/worthy/unworthy (see Notability). The EU directorates push people to advertise their projects, but that is not what WP is for. WP is an encyclopedia and all these "Eurospam" articles are unencyclopedic. --Crusio (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another in the series of EU research projects, described in promotional but hard to follow grant-application language: To ensure communication interoperability the project will consolidate and implement according the guidelines set by the Continua Health Alliance. This enables devices connected to the REACTION platform to respect the Continua product certification program signifying interoperability with other certified products. Aside of medical data supplied by the Continua Guidelines, the REACTION platform intends to adopt an open source philosophy that will involve any other relevant data into the platform. This is supported by the Hydra Middleware. Establishing the open source technology provided by Hydra ensures that contextual, environmental and other significant data can be measured and represented at all levels in the REACTION platform. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage from independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:51, 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. v/r - T P 15:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SEEMPubS (EU Project)[edit]

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

DePRODded article. PROD reason was "More Eurospam. No independent sources. No indication of notability. Does not meet any notability guideline including WP:GNG." This still holds, hence: Delete. Crusio (talk) 11:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: some miscellaneous notes on this kind of projects (not necessarily all applicable to this case) can be found here. --Crusio (talk) 11:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does this article differ from for example this article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COMET_(EU_project) Please be more specific in your reason. --Povlsen (talk) 13:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP has over 3 million articles and certainly not all of them satisfy all necessary policies and guidelines. So the fact that something similar exists is not an argument to keep this article (we call that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). That project obviously is also non-notable, so I have just PRODded it. --Crusio (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another in the series of EU research projects. This one is also written in very vague and forward looking terms that doesn't really convey information:

SEEMPubS will make use of the service-oriented middleware for embedded systems being developed in another EU project, the Hydra project and use its potential to create services and applications across heterogeneous devices to develop an energy-aware platform. The SEEMPubS platform will provide necessary functionality and tools to add energy efficiency features to monitor dynamic sensor data in real time, taking advantage of natural resources (like daylight and solar energy) and controlling the operation of both passive and active environmental systems to ensure the best possible comfort conditions with the most efficient use of energy.

What is this really about? Software to turn the lights on and off? If that's what it means, the article should say' "software to turn the lights on and off", and no one would be deceived about whether it represents the sort of leap forward that belongs in an encyclopedia or not. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In the absence of evidence of notable achieved outcome from this project (as opposed to reference to the software being used in the project), an article is at best premature. The Prod was declined on grounds "Not to much written about the project yet since it it ongoing. But 2.9 million Euros of the EU citizens tax money is being spent on this project so it should be of interest to have an article about it". While EU Research expenditure is one of the issues which has drawn negative comment from the EU auditors in their longstanding inability to sign-off, that situation is already covered under European_Union#Budget and articles on individual lines of expenditure are excessive here unless they gain specific notability. AllyD (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage from independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:50, 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. v/r - T P 15:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Loose Change (band)[edit]

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

The article has had multiple issues tagged for some time, including a request for reliable sources to indicate notability, but no-one has come forward. A google search for "loose change band" returns hits related to several bands, none of whom are the band listed on this page. Perhaps it is best to silently drop it. Ritchie333 (talk) 11:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Lacking significant coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. Mattg82 (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find significant coverage for this band, only trivial mentions (e.g. [15][16][17]); does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 23:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Legit band of the 1990s American punk revival. Trivial mention in books above is good enough for me. Carrite (talk) 03:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage from independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:50, 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 Nomination withdrawn. It is clear that there is in fact a significant amount of media coverage of this person, so it is right that we have an article about him. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gopal Kundu[edit]

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

No evidence of notability: does not seem to satisfy either the general notability guideline or the guideline on notability of academics. No independent sources are cited. (Deletion was proposed and seconded via WP:PROD and ((Prod2)), but was contested without explanation by an anonymous editor at an IP address with no edits not on this topic.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and make NPOV, else delete. Subject is primarily notable because of the plagiarism controversy, although that is adequately covered at Scientific plagiarism in India. There are some well-cited publications for which he is lead author (as well as many for which he is second or third author), e.g.:
- Recombinant human uteroglobin suppresses cellular invasiveness via a novel class of high-affinity cell surface binding site (70 cites)
- Evidence That Porcine Pancreatic Phospholipase A2 via Its High Affinity Receptor Stimulates Extracellular Matrix Invasion by Normal and Cancer Cells (65 cites)
- Uteroglobin (UG) Suppresses Extracellular Matrix Invasion by Normal and Cancer Cells That Express the High Affinity UG-binding Proteins (40 cites)

The combination of this work and the plagiarism controversy suggests notability, but WP:NPOV requires covering the controversy if the article is kept. -- 202.124.73.233 (talk) 11:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 202.124.73.233 (talk) 11:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 202.124.73.233 (talk) 11:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 202.124.73.233 (talk) 11:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Contributions by IP 202 have made the article NPOV, and the it looks like Kundu may pass WP:PROF, if barely. I am a bit concerned that the plagiarism controversy is such a major part of his notability that it may fall under WP:BLP1E. Favonian (talk) 12:47, 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. v/r - T P 15:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Mephistopheles(short film)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was: Film not yet released and nothing indicating notability Eeekster (talk) 09:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BALL and WP:PLOT. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. While the article describes the plot, it does not provide any information about who is planning the film... no director, no producer, no actors. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent info available, has not commenced production. pablo 08:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage from independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:50, 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. v/r - T P 15:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tripware[edit]

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

This article is a dictionary term, perhaps better suited on Wikitionary. JoshuaWalker | Talk to Me 09:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That can be fixed - the problem is more that I don't think it exists. I can't find anything relevant by Googling, which is scarcely believable for an IT term. Is this a neologism? 81.142.107.230 (talk) 09:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probable non-notable neologism. Also a very brief article without context and minimal content: Tripware (derived from triple point), refers to software running on virtualised hardware atop a physical host. The link to triple point is unhelpful; that article is actually about temperature/pressure states in which a substance can exist as solid, gas, or liquid. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The very short article makes no sense, and there seems to be no use of the term in this sort of context. Definitely don't add to Wiktionary as we don't even have a citation. Dingo1729 (talk) 05:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or consider redirecting as plausible misspelling of tripwire. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:49, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vaidhya[edit]

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

"Vaidhya" is just another last name in several Indian states. The article does not cite any sources and is mostly WP:OR. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep : The article was created by me a year ago but was not on my regular watchlist. However, I have added reliable references and removed the additions, which I feel were not in sync with the article and vandalism, added by other editors over the years. Please have a re-look before giving your comments. For Bengali caste Vaidhya, I created a separate page Baidya. Thanks!!Jethwarp (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Not only is it perfectly fine to have articles about notable and verifiably common surnames, per my arguments at the AFD's for Deshpande and Godbole, but this is not just an Indian family name. It's actually a term for an Ayurvedic doctor. Just because something is Indian and not Western doesn't make it non-notable. Steven Walling • talk 22:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 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. postdlf (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Mayfield[edit]

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

Im fairly sure this is a character bio from a fanfic sequel. google has no references to this. Creator's user page is similar, and indicates he is writing it. Gaijin42 (talk) 05:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - borderline eligible for speedy delete as a hoax. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete The page openly says it's a fan character.("created by the youngest sister of another of the fans") It has no business being on here. It's completely fancruft and isn't even official in the slightest. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete per above. Joefridayquaker (talk) 06:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we're giving space to a fan's younger sister's field mouse character? Enough said. WP:NOT. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G3, and tagged it accordingly. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Godbole[edit]

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

"Godbole" is just another last name in Maharashtra. The article does not cite any sources or relies on self-published sources and is mostly WP:OR. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are tons of articles about Indian family names and surnames in general. Very common surnames which describe things like caste and other important parts of culture are generally considered inherently notable, and this is a very common surname. It's entirely verifiable if you want to bother doing the book research and get some government census stats. Steven Walling • talk 21:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The article is notable and makes it easy to understand complex caste and sub-groups of Indian society. Nominator has given no valid reasons in his favor and has singled out other Indian article like Deshpande, Vaidhya, Inamdar, Gokhale etc.Jethwarp (talk) 04:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Last names have always had articles. Dream Focus 02:01, 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. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inamdar[edit]

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

"Inamdar" is just another last name in Maharashtra. The article lacks reliable sources and is mostly WP:OR Zuggernaut (talk) 05:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I've said here and here among other places, these surnames are perfectly notable and facts about them are verifiable with material like census data. Wikipedia has tons of surname-related articles, such as List of people with surname Jones. Steven Walling • talk 22:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The article is notable and makes it easy to understand complex caste and sub-groups of Indian society. Nominator has given no valid reasons in his favor and has singled out other Indian article like Deshpande, Vaidhya, Godbole, Gokhale etc.Jethwarp (talk) 04:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is notable and has references. It is poorly written and needs cleanup, but deletion is not the proper cure for articles needing improvement. --DThomsen8 (talk) 11:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gokhale[edit]

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

"Gokhale" is just another last name in Maharashtra. The article does not cite any sources and is mostly WP:OR Zuggernaut (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I've said here and here among other places, these surnames are perfectly notable and facts about them are verifiable with material like census data. Steven Walling • talk 22:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The article is notable and makes it easy to understand complex caste and sub-groups of Indian society. Nominator has given no valid reasons in his favor and has singled out other Indian article like Deshpande, Vaidhya, Inamdar, Godbole etc.Jethwarp (talk) 04:04, 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. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deshpande[edit]

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

"Deshpande" is just a last name. The article is mostly WP:OR and a list of people with the name. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid rationale for deletion given. There's a whole category of articles that are "just" a list of people with the name, e.g. List of people with surname Jones. OR could easily be fixed with a single edit, which I used to do but haven't been able to keep up with lately. My !vote on this AfD applies as well to all the others you've started. —Soap— 12:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Soap's argument and the fact that no policy about notability or sourcing was cited by the nominator. It is not original research that this surname exists and is common. Those facts are quite easily verifiable with census data or something similar. Steven Walling • talk 22:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The article is notable and makes it easy to understand complex caste and sub-groups of Indian society. Nominator has given no valid reasons in his favor and singled out other Indian articles for AfD like Godbole, Vaidhya, Inamdar, Gokhale etc.Jethwarp (talk) 04:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All last names are notable. There is enough information about it to warrant an article. Dream Focus 03:53, 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 delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Gospel of Thomas Association[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Article is about a not-for-profit organisation with no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability, including specific notability for organisations. Additionally, the material consists almost entirely of material that is a quote of their constitution and basic beliefs which is suitable for their website but Wikipedia is not a web host. Whpq (talk) 04:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article. Some 29 votes at the end of the Article have referenced this article in good Wikipedia standing. Furthermore, the article has been in circulation on Wikipedia for more than a year and a half with thousands of views. Tom Morris is no doubt showing a religious bias against the unorthodoxy this non-profit religious group represents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.198.107.247 (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Tom Morris has done nothing but categorise this deletion debate so that interested editors can more easily find it. I am the editor that nominated it and I can assure you that there is no religious bias involved. The length of time the article has been on Wikipedia and the number rating votes do not address the reason for the article nomination for deletion which is that it does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 06:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When you remove the constitution and original quotes, what is left is that the organization exists and was founded in 1997. This may be accurate, but does nothing whatsoever to show that the organization is notable under our standards. Note also that this article is not about the Gospel of Thomas, but about an organization closely associated with its contents. That association does not confer notability, as per WP:NOTINHERITED. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage from independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:31, 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 keep. Black Kite (t) 00:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elisa Gabrielli[edit]

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

This actress doesn't appear to have garnered any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. No suggestion that she meets any subject-specific criteria, either. ^Bongo_matic 03:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nominator hit it on the head: there are no independent sources other than IMDB listed, and she has not done anything as an actress to meet WP:BIO's criteria for actresses. —C.Fred (talk) 03:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment Article's nominated state aside, her rather long career as actress and voice artist IS properly sourcable. The number of different AKAs simply makes doing so a bit difficult. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Her extensive list is also confirmed by Special:WhatLinksHere/Elisa Gabrielli. The reason for this deletion request is that all that work has not generated any "significant coverage in reliable sources." Does she meet WP:ENT?
I think this is another case where Wikipedia's notability requirements prevent encyclopedic articles for people with extensive credits. Hundreds of obscure dead composers and their works and interpreters would not have Wikipedia articles if those rules were not (correctly) disregarded. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it important to remember that WP:GNG is set in place to assist editors in determining notability when WP:SIGCOV is available. The SNGs, such as WP:ENT, are set in place to assist in determining notability when SIGCOV is lacking. One does not trump or over-rule the other. Both are parts of WP:N, they are intended to work together, and not to be set at odds. A reliable source used to verify a fact or assertion need not itself have to be SIGCOV, as the standards of BLP require verifiability of assertions, not significant coverage of assertions. We have two different and sometimes confused concepts: The required WP:ENT verifiability does not itself have to be SIGCOV, if such verifiability is found in RS suitable for the topic being discussed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:39, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which verified prong of ENT do you think has been established? ^Bongo_matic 23:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ENT#1. See below. 07:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

update - User:Juniper99, who admits to being the subject of this article, has come up with a bunch of links of varying qualities, which have been pasted to the talk page of the article. She readily admits to not being computer savvy, and asks that somebody take a look at them before participating further in the discussion. I have been contacted by her in Real Life, and thus will not be further participating in the AfD discussion, to avoid any appearance of NPOV violation. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice. For those who feel the GNG trumps all other guidelines, we now have sources which address the individual and her work. I'll be away from the keyboard for a few hours on some auditions, but will look to address sourcing when I return... unless someone else does so in the interim. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please note that after the above two messages were written, for reader convenience I added links to four of the sources of the list given by Juniper99 at Talk Elisa Gabrielli. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per verifiability of career and sources found and offered that address this individual directly and in detail. Adding them to the article is an issue best adressed throuh regular editing and not requiring a deletion. Is she the most notable ever? Nope. Is she just notable enough? Yes. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you basing your conclusion on the GNG, ENT, or some other guideline? There isn't coverage of sufficient depth to meet GNG, and I don't see any claims of any prong of ENT being met. ^Bongo_matic 23:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both actually... My keep is based on the GNG for she and her work being addressed in a more-than-trivial manner in reliable sources as offered by User:Bob K31416, and through my understanding that the GNG itself not require that the sources speak only about the artist, as long as she is spoken of in a more-than-trivial fashion... and ENT#1 for her "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", and such roles being verifiable in multiple reliable sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toonzone isn't a reliable source, so GNG isn't met. The verifiable roles don't, in my estimation, meet the "significant" threshold. ^Bongo_matic 07:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources other than the questioned ToonZone, and his and other non-ToonZone sources speak of her in a more-than-trivial manner. For instance, many speak about the growth of her character in the Madagascar films. However, there are many more AKAs of her to search through, and many other productions to consider. And with WP:ENT, we do not judge notability by only the least that a voice artist has done. We look at the best, and can consider if a large body of work is worthy or note. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Schmidt and per my interpretation of WP:GNG. You know, the darnest thing, the nominator here argues "delete" for this stub that has one strong RS with in-depth coverage of the subject and some additional possibly intangible indicators of notability, yet here [[18]] the same editor argues "strong keep" for a similar stub (that he created) that has one strong RS with in-depth coverage of the subject and some additional possibly intangible indicators of notability. Hm. It must be irrelevant, because I am sure no upstanding WP editor would have double standards. Respectfully, Turqoise127 03:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which "strong RS" are you referring to? By the way, I didn't opine "strong keep" on the other AfD you reference. ^Bongo_matic 04:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There only is one reference listed, Bongomatic. Please do not patronize me. The Toonzone website offers an in-depth interview about the subject herself. That is a strong RS for me. Also, since I see much on there about voice over actors, it is an indicator that she is respected by her peers. Oh, and sorry, you voted "Speedy keep" on the other AfD I reference, and proceeded to write a novel in its defense. Thanks for that correction. Turqoise127 05:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked in news archives and book and see no evidence that Toonzone is a reliable source. ^Bongo_matic 07:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After doing a search for toonzone news in Wikipedia article space,[19] it looks like the source has been considered reliable enough to use in many Wikipedia articles. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here the sources is purportedly being used to establish notability, not simply verify a fact. Sources may be sufficient for the latter without being sufficient for the former (indeed, facts that are not controversial may be sourced from a very wide array of sources). ^Bongo_matic 00:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In trying to understand your last message about what reliable sources are for this discussion, I looked at WP:GNG which stated,

"* "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline."

Is this what you meant in your last message? --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SIGCOV is an easier way to determine notability... but not the only way. I believe the confusion is found in how one equates verifiability with notability. It is just as you find... while both verifiability and notability have a requirement for reliable sources as the required mandate, notability is found through the verifiability of an assertion, and not through the assertion itself having significant coverage. If the "assertion of notability" is having significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, etc, that asserted fact requires verifiability, and not significant coverage, in order to show notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're mistaking two ideas. I'm not suggesting that proof of any assertion a-la ENT have significant coverage (though in fact, some of the prongs of ENT are value judgments rather than black-and-white matters where the quality of the sourcing determines whether editors buy into the assertion). I'm stating that for GNG purposes (SIGCOV notwithstanding—based on actual outcomes) the quality of the source matters. Significant coverage in niche sources is much less persuasive than sources of record. You may think this ought not to be relevant, but in fact it is a factor taken into account in many editors' opinions at AfD. ^Bongo_matic 10:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability is dependent upon the reliability of the source and its appropriateness for citing asserted facts related to a topic. If a source is deemed to be of poor quality, then it should be avoided for purposes of verifiability. "Quality and depth" is an issue related to signficant coverage, and a tendency at some AFDs on an insistance that only significant coverage can show notability, when in fact the SNGs were set in place specifically for instances where SIGCOV's signficant coverage is not present. Is Variety a niche publication? Perhaps, but one long accepted as suitable under WP:RS when dealing with the "niche" of actors and film. Are Mercury News and The Baltimore Sun, or even The Gazette niche publications? No, as they meet the criteria set in WP:RS. While SIGCOV is the easier way to show notability, it is not the only way. The key to notability is verifiability in suitable reliable sources, a key which does not require nor demand significant coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow some of this.

the key to notability is verifiability in suitable reliable sources, a key which does not require nor demand significant coverage.

That's just not true. The key to notability established by specific facts (e.g., played professional sports, elected to highest office in a nation etc.) is verifiability in suitable reliable sources. The key to notability established by coverage is significant coverage in reliable sources.

I maintain (and am inviting DGG, a generally expansionist editor for his views here) that for GNG notability, the source's significance in establishing notability is (in fact—regardless of the language of guidelines) is not only the reliability in terms of whether the report is likely to be accurate, but that the general readership, audience, prevalence, and reputation of the publication is highly relevant to whether a particular source establishes GNG notability.

Whether a particular source is "niche" is context dependent. A Milpitas restaurant given an in-depth review in the Merc is not notable. A Boston-area technology company in a patent dispute with Apple might be. ^Bongo_matic 01:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to debate reaturants. My statement stems directly from policy and the very sentence of WP:V stating "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." The policy on verifiability requires a reliable source. It does not require sigficant coverage in a source for it to be seen as reliable. I heartily agree that significant coverage is an ideal means by which to measure notability, but guideline itself acknowleges that in the absence of SIGCOV, there are still other means by which we might determine if a topic is worthy of notice.. and so it sends us to the SNGs, where we look to see if an assertion is verifiable in a reliable source even in the absence of significant coverage. Lets seeif I can condense this into a few sentences without shooting myself in the foot... As I understand it,

as complementay parts of WP:N, Both the GNG and the SNGs offer means by which we may measure notability.

both the GNG and the SNGs require verifiability in reliable sources.

the GNG works through significant coverage of a topic in a relaible source.

the SNGs work through verifiability of an assertion in the ABSENCE of significant coverage, but still in a reliable source.

reliability of a source is dependent upon it being third-party, published, and having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

reliability of a source also has to do with whether or not the source can be considered suitable in context to what is being sourced.

if a source is properly reliable in context to what is being sourced, it may be used via the GNG if signiciant in coverage, OR used through the SNGs if not.

the key to both being verifiability.

You above repeat my own words back to me: "The key to notability established by specific facts (e.g., played professional sports, elected to highest office in a nation etc.) is verifiability in suitable reliable sources." You then state The key to notability established by coverage is significant coverage in reliable sources." I do not see that we are in disagreement, as your response addresses both a notability "key" being found through verifiability of an assertion (SNGs) AND a notability "key" being found through significant coverage (GNG) of a topc. Am I wrong, or are we agreeing that two related keys can open the same lock without jamming each other? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Without reference to this particular source or this particular article, neither of which I have looked at--quite deliberately. Bongo asked me for a general opinion so I want to make sure what I'm saying is general:

certainly the differences between sources matter; both for justification for facts, and for evidence of notability, Sources are not in a reliable | non-reliable dichotomy, they're in a spectrum of reliability. There is no source so poor it cannot sometimes be used in so manner; there is no source so authoritative that it is 100% reliable. We usually do in practice take account of this in several ways: An attempt to use a really minor out of the way source to justify notability will often not succeed, depending on the subject--we'll accept it for an area we have trouble getting sources such as some parts of the world and some subjects about which little is written, but not in cases where better sources should be there, if the subject actually is notable.

I consider Bongo's restaurant example a good one. I've sometimes expressed it a a question of being discriminating--local newspapers are not discriminating in the reviews of local restaurants--they will get every one of them regardless of importance; home-town sources will not be discriminating in reviews of books by home-town authors; college newspapers are not discriminating in articles about student body politicians. In all 3 cases, if we followed the GNG literally, we'd get grotesque over-coverage. There is no formula--a decision on notability however you go about it is a matter of informed judgement. There is a point in having a standard of notability--basically, it's expected of an encyclopedia. People who look on us as covering everything sometimes do not realize all the things we do not cover. We cover what has always seemed to me a remarkably and probably excessively large number of entertainers, but even we do not cover every one of them. It does not matter as much at what level we set the bar, as it matters that we do have one. (And it also matters that we have some degree of consistency, which I see as the main problem at AfD, where most decisions are made by a small and unrepresentative number of people. I'd much rather we had a consistent standard more exclusionry than I would like, rather than one that's essentially random.

There are some real problem cases: for example, restaurants in New York City, where the NYTimes is both a local newspaper and an authoritative international one. (I trust their standard for restaurants for material in the main newspaper, but I do not trust it for their suburban supplements). This is just an example--analogous situations apply in other fields also. I sometimes think we do wrong by regarding national importance as unrelarted to the size of the nation, and its importance in the subject area. It is impossible to judge correctly at AfD without thinking, though some people seem to try. that's why I put great weight in unfamiliar fields on the opinion of people who understand the subject, rather than my own ignorant guesses. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The example of a local town newspaper which reviews local restaurants does not seem relevant to the reliable source Toonzone News which covers the subject of animation in the world, not just the animation produced and viewed in one town. --Bob K31416 (talk) 10:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:GNG, per sources provided at Talk Elisa Gabrielli.--Cavarrone (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on balance. I wasn't entirely convinced by the notability argument until I read the talk page. Assuming the offline sources are as significant in coverage as they would appear to be, that looks like pretty convincing evidence for WP:BASIC compliance. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:03, 17 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 Body area network. Black Kite (t) 00:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Body Sensor Networks[edit]

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

non notable neologism. All references are works written or partially written by the creator of the term. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to Body area network. If anything is salvageable merge it in. AIRcorn (talk) 03:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect - Prof Guang-Zhong has 364 citations (listed by Google Scholarly articles) for BSN, not to mention his Springer book of that name; but he's not the only one, as author Lo is cited by 90 papers and author Baldus on same topic is cited by 65 papers. Term BSN is also in use in paper BSN for Mobile Health Monitoring: Val Jones, Valerie Gay, Peter Leijdekkers for example; and at BSN: Benny, Lo et al (the Prof is a co-author on this last one, probably by his students). There is also a BSN Contest. There's lots more. Sigh. By the way, BSN workshops were held annually from 2006 (not sure if one happened this year), so the neologism is not very new any more. I think we're going to have to accept that BSN is here to stay, even if it is basically a Body area network. I'm not against a redirect, but I doubt deletion is a sensible option, it'll only come back. Actually "sensor" is a clearer term than "area": redirect BAN to BSN? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I merged them last August[20], using this discussion as a guide following a stale 2007 merge tag[21]. Body Area Network is currently the better article in my opinion, although it still needs work.AIRcorn (talk) 09:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect - Need to attempt to finish the merge discussion before talking about deletion. I've reopened discussion. --Kvng (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was finished. The discussion should really be about whether to split the article as the merged version is the status quo now. AIRcorn (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AIRcorn, could you explain what you mean by 'split' here? What in your view should we probably be doing now, and why? I feel I may have missed something.... Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First off I admit to knowing virtually nothing about the topic. It is on my watchlist because I was working through the old merge tags a year ago and this had one from 2007. I read the discussion and there was consensus to merge into BAN so I did so. I don't think there was much to take across so it was more a redirect. My reply above is to Kvng who reopened the discussion and suggested we finish discussing it. I feel that if something has a merge tag on it for three years and during that time only two editors commented suggesting a merge into BAN there is little point in reopening the discussion. Maybe split was the wrong word, but I do feel the merge discussion is well and truly stale and a different discussion should be opened, which I guess in a way this AFD is doing. AIRcorn (talk) 10:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your merge was the right thing to do. Problem is, it didn't stick; It was it was promptly reverted by an anon editor with incomplete explanation. I have requested a full explanation. If none is forthcoming, and once this AfD is closed, I will revert the merge revert and take it from there. --Kvng (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. AIRcorn (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:35, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is definately not a neologism. The wiki page for Body Sensor Netowrks has just been added. There are quite a lot more contents and references are being added to the page. Obvivously, references from the creator will be added first, and much more references from other sources are being added. Bennyplo (talk) 04:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC) This was on the discussion page and appears to be a keep vote. Moved it here so it would not be missed AIRcorn (talk) 03:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The S.O.G. Crew (Urban Hip-Hop)[edit]

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

No clear evidence of notability. This article is related to previous deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle Ax. The reliability of the references for the claimed awards is low - All information about the awards ceremony links to a press release produced by Elite TV [[22]] which is a company of owned one of the band members. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe majority of sources in the article are incidental mentions or in non-independent press releases. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 02:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note to admin - there are also some newly created funnel pages redirecting to the nominated page eg. The S.O.G. Crew (Hip-Hop) and DJ Siren

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability, conflict of interest, reads like an advertisement. Ugncreative Usergname (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - for the long string of reasons explained by Ugn. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Ugn. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:36, 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 keep. v/r - T P 15:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Patsy (1959)[edit]

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

I am not sure whether the storm is notable enough for an article. It it quite short, but on the other hand it was a Cat 5. I'm personally split, but I am listing it here to seek non-WPTC opinions. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 02:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded this article somewhat. I do feel Category 5 hurricane's are notable for an article (there is more than one way a storm can be notable, Patsy got an article for a reason), though this /might/ be an exception to the rule. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that all of the content is also located here. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia has literally millions of articles that are short, but still cover very notable topics. A documented Category 5 hurricane is almost always notable (I can't think of any instance where it wouldn't be), and the article content's presence in full within the season page is creating a highly unbalanced setup (Patsy has two full paragraphs and the Mexico hurricane has two sentences). Until the season article is fully developed, there's no other option. Juliancolton (talk) 02:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a little note, I don't think there would be undue weight due to how long ago it was. Most of the landfalling storms were weak (so there wouldn't be much impact). There were only five hurricanes (which tend to have more info) - two of those had a good amount of impact (Mexican C5 and Dot), another remained at sea, and the last doesn't have any known impact. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

**Delete - The storm did absolutely nothing. How is a Category 5 system that developed and dissipated in open waters notable enough for an article? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:EVENT, events are generally notable if (a) they have significant coverage in reliable independent sources (this does, per sources in article), (b) they have enduring historical significance (all tropical cyclones with an international designation meet this criterion), (c) they have widespread impact (it crossed a large part of the Pacific), (d) it is covered widely and reassessed afterwards (this is almost always the case with named tropical cyclones), and (e) it does not fall within a category of events that could be described as "routine" (the article notes that Patsy sets a couple of historical precedents, so probably not routine). - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that all of the sources in the article come from the warning centres that would monitor it today thus i do not think it meets the independent criteria.Jason Rees (talk) 18:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Our coverage of tropical storms is fairly deep and detailed. Quite a few of the articles, including this one, have Good Article status. This is perhaps slightly misleading; at least as far as when records became available, these articles can be produced in semi-template manners from public sources. The result is a well-sourced, illustrated article that's very similar to dozens of other articles about hurricanes and typhoons. This article is a part of a series, and the series would be incomplete without it. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not bye that this would be a significant gap in the C5 PHS series unless a named storm that lasts six hours and does not have any affect on land is also a gap in a season topic.Jason Rees (talk) 18:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All category 5 hurricanes except for the WPAC are inherently notable IMO. All named tropical system are not. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No their not - for example Cyclone Edzani is not notable for an article because it didnt have any impact.Jason Rees (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The article can always be created. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a ton of short hurricane articles out there. A Category 5 that receives a good amount of coverage can have an article; its intensity compared to its peak winds were unusual. HurricaneFan 25 16:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It hasnt recived that much coverage outside of wikipedia though, most of the google results are not for this storm AFAICT.Jason Rees (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - holding the record for the basin's wind maximum makes it notable. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The actual record holder is Linda with a pressure of 902 mb. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 19:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, record holder in the central Pacific basin. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You mean CPHC AOR :P. In terms of winds speeds, it ties the record with Hurricane John (1994). YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thats assuming that the recon was correct in its windspeeds - remember this was before satellites could be used to verify the intensity of a system.Jason Rees (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - And remember that there are doubts about the intensity, given the lowest pressure measured. HurricaneFan 25 16:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        See below. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as nominator. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane
Change to Keep -- After another evaluation of the article, I do realize that it was short, but there is enough information available and displayed to at least let this article stay. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is not notable since the storm did nothing bar intensify to the top of a scale that did not even exist at the time and even that is disputed since there it was in the time before satellites. I think the season article would be able to handle it quite easily without causing undue weight to be given to the system.Jason Rees (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not trying to argue over this on-wiki, but would your opinion be different if Patsy occurred in the internet age? I'm just wondering. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 18:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No my opinion would be the same - it is just a simple basin crosser that did not affect land.Jason Rees (talk) 18:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - k, I was just asking. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 18:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to quote the article no known impact. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Storms don't have to impact land to be notable. Every other EPAC Cat 5 has an article, so why can't this one have an article. With that said, this article is the most debatable of all due to its lack of size. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Generally they do though. Do any sources actually establish this storm's notability? That is, they say the storm is notable because of X? Sure, one source says it could have had the highest winds in a 40 degree band of longitude, but that same source puts doubt on the storm's winds. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - From here, " Only Hurricane PATSY in the pre-satellite era of 1959 may have exceeded RICK in intensity. PATSY had an estimated 150 kt winds in it when investigated by a B-50 reconnaissance aircraft far west of Hawaii as the former typhoon moving northward along the dateline made an excursion into the central Pacific in September 1959. " From here, Patsy is listed top on the top Central Pacific hurricanes. YE ^Pacific ^Hurricane 15:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yea, and the CPHC also doubted the intensity here. For how short the article is, there is little additional info to what is already in the season section here. Its importance as a Category 5 hurricane should already be listed at List of Category 5 Pacific hurricanes. It should be notable on its own. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Right now, 160 knts is the highest intensity in HURDAT, if it is downgraded in a few years, yeah, go ahead and merge it. Yea, it should be notable of its own at least for now. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah 160 knots is the highest intensity NOT 150 knots which Patsy apparently was.Jason Rees (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        That is only 10 knts away. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 00:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        So what - that doesnt mean that it meets our notability criteria, or that it would not be better written in the season articles.Jason Rees (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I tend to disagree, why have a season section that is equal to or longer than the infobox when it a storm article can easily be made? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 00:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Because there is no need for one and it would not necessarily be equal or longer than the infobox. Its only notability factor maybe that it is 10 knots away from the end of hurdat but that is OR and no way to base an article on.Jason Rees (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        How is there no need for one? And yes, the season section is that length. 00:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
        Because as people keep telling you this tropical cyclone did nothing notable. Also the season article isnt the same length as the Infobox though it needs one heck of a tidy up which i hope whoever merges this article can perform.Jason Rees (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could someone who knows this field re-write the lede? The lede should focus on PATSY as a milestone in the measurement of storms, since that's where the notability is. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - TBH there isnt a milestone - the only grasp of notability that YE thinks Patsy has is that it is a Cat 5 and is the strongest storm by windspeeds in a 40 deg wide area that is monitored by a separate warning centre than the rest of the Eastern Pacific ocean. If we expand it to cover the whole of the EPAC (ie America to 180 degrees) we find Linda which had stronger winds.Jason Rees (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - - It would still be the 3rd highest in terms of wind speed. JR, WPAC is different, environment is much more favorable there. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I didnt say WPAC i said EPAC Theres a big difference.Jason Rees (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Agreed, but for some reason or another, you made it seem like you were implying that all EPAC Cat 5's have articles and not all WPAC Cat 5's have article, and since the EPAC and WPAC are in the same ocean, they should not get articles. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 00:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        No i didnt. Anyway like i said earlier if Cyclone Edzani is not notable enough for its own article then i do not see how Patsy is.Jason Rees (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Juliancolton. Like that user said, I don't see how a Cat. 5 hurricane isn't notable. 89119 (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Its quite easy to see really - this cat 5 did not cause any impact to land and does not have any impact or significant coverage outside of the warning centres.Jason Rees (talk) 12:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - a Category 5 storm is as close to "inherently notable" as anything gets. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope: a Category 5 system is not that notable when it does nothing bar intensify into a cat 5 and thus does not get any coverage outside of the warning centers.Jason Rees (talk) 12:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:EVENT--Cavarrone (talk) 06:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesnt though Per WP:EVENT An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable, this hasnt, the only source outside of the warning centres (NHC, CPHC, JMA, JTWC) that i have seen is an unreliable blog.Jason Rees (talk) 12:53, 16 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 15:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Benjamin[edit]

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

He has never played at a notable level .. fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG .. article can be recreated if he makes his debut for Guyana national team but for the moment he's non-notable TonyStarks (talk) 02:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. TonyStarks (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as he has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league, he fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian Soccer League (CSL) is considered as the only professional league in Canada. Taylor has played for a professional team in Brazil and in a few days he will represent his national team so this page should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.202.16 (talk) 04:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In reply to the previous post, the CSL is not professional by any stretch of the imagination. It's a semi-professional league operating in one province. As for the player in question, like I said in my nomination, if he makes his debut for Guyana, I'll gladly withdraw the AfD. TonyStarks (talk) 08:58, 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. I originally closed as keep per the source by Wifione. However, it seems to have come to light that that source may have been an unreliable one. Per the FIFA site, Julien Edwards did not play for Guyana on Nov 15. [23] v/r - T P 15:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Julien Edwards[edit]

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

He has never played at a notable level .. fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG .. article can be recreated if he makes his debut for Guyana national team but for the moment he's non-notable TonyStarks (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. TonyStarks (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. At present, he fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT, as he has not received significant coverage, or played in a fully pro league. I will change my !vote to keep if he makes his debut for Guyana on Friday. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At present, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 18:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian Soccer League (CSL) is sanctioned by FIFA as Canada's only professional league. Julien Edwards has played in the USL and will represent his national team on the 11th so I believe this players page should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.202.16 (talk) 04:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In reply to the previous post (like in other AfD), the CSL is not professional by any stretch of the imagination. It's a semi-professional league operating in one province. As for the player in question, like I said in my nomination, if he makes his debut for Guyana, I'll gladly withdraw the AfD. TonyStarks (talk) 08:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Confirmed![24][25]. Wifione ^Message 14:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shinsuke Shiroiwa[edit]

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

I can find no reliable sources that attest to this person's notability. Web searches in both Japanese and English find the name contained only in long lists or in Wikipedia mirrors (the Japanese Wikipedia article was created by the same user). There are no independent articles on this person. The Wikipedia article states the artist is a member of Nihon Bijutsuin, but the member list on that website does not even contain this name. Even the official webpage listed on the page is virtually blank. Michitaro (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage from independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing any third-party sourcing to demonstrate or establish notability. --DAJF (talk) 07:21, 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 merge to 2011 Nebraska Cornhuskers football team. v/r - T P 15:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nebraska vs Ohio State (The Lazarus Game)[edit]

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

Non-notable college football game. Does not pass WP:Event. Not likely to have lasting significance. Inclusion not supported by independent sources beyond routine sports reporting. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 01:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nebraska Cornhuskers football. And Adoil Descended (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing special about this game, and only two sources--both ESPN articles--do not reveal anything special about it other than routine reporting. Basic "fandom" material. If kept, standard naming would be 2011 Ohio State vs. Nebraska football game.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Another thought Title of article shows serious violation of WP:POV, favoring Cornhusker fans. I doubt seriously that Ohio State calls it the "Lazarus Game" --Paul McDonald (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2011 Nebraska Cornhuskers football team. I see nothing special about this game to warrant its own page. It was a nice comeback but not a special game.
Delete as above - no need for redirect (it's an implausible search term). Neutrality^talk 01:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Paulmcdonald. This game was certainly an exciting game, and there can and should be a discussion of the game in the 2011 Nebraska Cornhuskers football team article, but I don't see enough in the coverage to support a separate article. Not every exciting game warrants an article. Cbl62 (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:40, 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 speedy delete. CSD G7 v/r - T P 17:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

South America Life Quality Rankings[edit]

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

This article seems to have been created with the purpose of replicating the content of several lists and rankings in one place, with the sole distinction of being focused on a single continent (South America). The result is, as one would expect, a massive content forking which is made unreadable and hard to maintain by its sheer size, without adding anything to Wikipedia. For the same reasons, I am also nominating these pages which were split from the nominated article:

Keep

This article was created after extensively looking into Wikipedia for specific South America Rankings related to Life Quality and Development. Information and charts which are periodically required by institutions such as all American and foreign Embassies in South America to be able to provide on-line serious and verifiable information to several requestors interested in knowing more about South America and their specific different countries.

The closest thing to what it was been looking for was the article Economy of South America, article with similar structure but just economic oriented and not “human level” oriented as this new article which considers parameters such as Human Development Index HDI, Health, Education, Gender equality, Environment, Society sustainability, Law and justice, Press freedom, Corruption, Income equality, etc., and which is trying to consider also the trend of each variable during the past years and during the present decade (2010-2020). By the way, the mentioned Economy of South America has existed since 2005 not knowing that anybody has ever asked for its deletion, but unfortunately, this 6 years old article lacks of adequate structure, quality and presentation level, and most important, from appropriate description of sources and data. Please check the mentioned article for a fair comparison, and most important, for objective "precedent" consideration purposes.

A big effort was done in creating this new article and to include multiple alternative parameters, to be able to offer a multivariable and human-level perspective of present Life Quality and Development in this growing continent, where several countries should reach the "developed" status during this decade (2010-2020).

After gathering as many internationals parameters as possible, and always looking for alternatives to be un-biased (hopefully having at least two well-know and verifiable rankings about every single topic), and spending a lot of time on data verification and also in data processing to enrich Wikipedia numerical information whit so far non existing specific South America calculations and analysis, this article has been taking form.

The article grew to a point where it was necessary to split it for a better reading and easier navigation. Splitting process that has not ended yet in order to accomplish the "very long" tag requirement. Probably two more sub-articles splitting may be required; Health and Education.

Close to 400 million South Americans are looking for sources to monitoring their respective countries development processes, and so are doing local and international organizations, and this article has become one of the best sources where to find so many specific, well-presented and verifiable information.

About the fact that the majority of this information exists somewhere else, that is a fact shared with almost all articles in Wikipedia (no one has ever invented the wheel in here), but in this case what already existed was just massive worldwide data articles but not the specific South America oriented rank calculations and presentation, which is one of the most appreciated benefits for some Wikipedia readers, professionals the most, which is to find very specific information offered in the most friendly and fast-understanding format, which means real an updated figures, tables and maps presented in a appropriate structure and logical sequence. Nevertheless, relevant new information and individual-level calculations have been added to Wikipedia through these articles with new processed and verified data that did not exist in any other article before.

About the point if this article is "adding anything to Wikipedia" or not, I think that we should be open-minded and democratic and let Wikipedia readers to decide that (this objective parameter can be checked reviewing the "Page view statistics"), in which case we can find thousands of permanent and very old articles which considerable less daily-average-viewers than this relatively new article considered as a whole (the 3 present nominated articles; 1 main and 2 sub-articles so far).

Southamerica2010 (talk) 03:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not only is this an unnecessary content fork and a completely unmanageable article, the author has got the bit between his teeth and is creating even more like this. The latest is South America Life Quality Rankings - Education which should also be included in this AfD. andy (talk) 14:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

The new "creation", as it was referred above, is just a consequence of the will to obey and to accomplish the "very long" tag requirement left in October in the original article, and it meant a reduction in that original one.

About if all this information, related to human level development in a continent that affect almost 400 million habitants, is really "necessary" or not, well I suppose that for a lot of people like me is more necessary than the article of "The Big Bang Theory" (I'm a fan too) which is also basically a content fork of non numerical "trivial" information about "fictional" characters, information that can be found in hundreds of other websites, blogs and similar. On the other hand, I invite you to find at least just one alternative internet-source with similar multivariable and so useful information for human development policies creation or development monitoring in South America than this article that was proposed to be deleted. Unless that it were more important to the world and to Wikipedia as an Encyclopedia if Penny is still dating Leonard in the real life. If information about one trivial USA TV sitcom is more relevant than the multivariable monitoring of South America "human" development, then I think that this disgusting discriminatory approach should be officially communicated to the world by Wikipedia creators, and especially to all South American and BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) governments and inhabitants. I would like to see their reaction now, but I don’t want to see their reciprocity actions in 20 more years.

I believe that people who vote here should really perform a more serious and deep analysis of the articles they are commenting, and take more time than they probably spent watching and re-watching “The Big Bang Theory“ (sitcom) episodes. They should also compare the nominated ones with thousands of other present and very old articles whit objectively dubious encyclopedic benefit (see trivial The Big Bang Theory) or with similar structures (see poor quality Economy of South America) or with higher sizes (see more than 225k bytes France), but which curiously have never been nominated for deletion. But I don't even say that the last ones must be delete instead, since, and of course respecting some basic decency, moral and logical rules, it should be real Wikipedia "readers" who decide, and I'm not talking about the bunch of internet-fan´s to use to comment and decide in here (me included) but about normal-life "readers" who have never created, corrected or voted-for-deletion an article, but who seriously use this information in their real lives in ways that would probably change the facts will see published here in the future.

Southamerica2010 (talk) 16:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and could you please stop spamming this mess of a list in every South America country article? The "see also" section is meant to provide useful links related to the article at hand, not a free advertising space for someone's pet articles.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi "eh bien mon prince". I see in your page that you have intervened in several topics about South American countries, so I conclude you are "somehow" interested in the matter. Is there some fact from the rankings or their objective values that personally bothers you that much to do such ad-hominem comments and to be interested in deleting these articles? Could you exactly inform all of us where have I enriched any "see also" section in any article that had no real relation with the matter? Thanks in advance.

Southamerica2010 (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, there are already dozens of lists on all kinds of topics and they all include south American countries already. Keeping them all in one place is not an improvement.--Deeweee (talk) 07:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll have to insists in the need that people who vote here really take the time to study the article, and most important, the precedents.

Even though several world rankings already exist in other articles, some does not exists as the Sustainable Society Index, others does not include all South American countries; as in Education (which is probably the most debated topic in this continent at this moment), where PISA results presented in article Programme for International Student Assessment does not include any South American country at all, and if the discriminatory answer would be, but the link to the original and complete source exists, then all Wikipedia articles should be only References list, since almost 99% of the existent article’s information exists in or come from other sources. Other existent rankings have figures at a country level and not at an individual level. And again, this article has created several new ranks that did not exist before, as the Export Import Surplus per capita (human level parameter), and also several time-evolution indexes.

But based on the so weak and/or lousy arguments presented so far for its deletion, there’s no other option than to conclude the following:

Discrimination issue involved - based on precedents

When I first created this article (which was just one piece at the beginning and which had to be split obeying the “very long” tag requirement), and as a lawyer, I took the time to deeply check, based on precedents, if what I was going to create was according to Wikipedia de-facto accepted practices, and since I found several examples as the already mentioned poor quality, incomplete, un-updated and not human-level oriented Economy of South America, which exists since 2005, and very particulary the "Financial and social rankings of sovereign states in Europe", which is kind of an "Europe" version of the nominated article(s) that has existed since 2003, which is un-updated, which has 1/5 of the daily average viewer and which curiously has never been nominated for deletion in this 8 years, I concluded based on those precedents and objective primordial justice and "equality" precepts that it was totally correct to create some especific South-America human-level rankings article.

So, at this point and based on the so urgent nomination for deletion of an article just created in May 2011, the existence of so many precedents of old specific-continent-rankings articles like this one, and the lack of deep and serious analysis and arguments from the people who has voted for its deletion, the only logic explanations at this moment is either that some undeniable discrimination to certain countries or group of countries aroused, or worst either, that some political or nationalist operators are trying to hide to their countries' inhabitants facts their governments or political organizations don’t want them to know and realize.

Southamerica2010 (talk) 13:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you want to nominate that list for deletion, you have my support.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as un-navicable content forks. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you specify “why” it is un-navigable?.

Since, and thanks to “eh bien mon prince”, who provided this link to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions to all of us, and which “Nutshell” states:

This page in a nutshell:

Always try to make clear, solid arguments in deletion discussions
Avoid short one-liners or simple links (including to this page)
Explain why an article does or does not meet specific criteria, guidelines or policies

So and accordingly, we should “avoid short one-liners” (Nutshell 2).

By the way, what “eh bien mon prince” did was exactly what the "Nutshell" recommend not to do, “Avoid short one-liners or simple links (including to this page)”', which also proves what I’ve insisted before, that some people who votes here does not really read the articles they are voting since in this case they didn’t even read the article-arguments they are using, but in fact we have seen just “short lines” and links, but nobody has really provide “solid arguments” (Nutshell 1) by “explaining why this article does or does not meet specific criteria, guidelines or policies” (Nutshell 3).

And talking about provide arguments as I have always done in here and coming back to the navigation issue:

First, as the majority of Wikipedia articles this article provides an index in “Contents”, so you could jump to any specific section at will.

Second, there’s no problem to use it in any normal Desktop or Notebook at all, unless you are talking about some sort of museum unit, in which case you should have navigation problems with all the bigger articles as USA, Russia, France, etc. Do we have to delete those articles then since your hardware is inappropriate to open them? I’ve seen this article used in Ipads 1 even, again with no problem. But of course if you are a gadget’s fan and want to read it in some sort of wrist-watch computer, then I suppose it would be more difficult.

Third, if you have problems in your device with the Tables and Maps in this article(s), then you’ll have it in all pages with them. That’s not an article problem but your device problem. Are those Tables and Maps hard to load and do they have visual problems in some devices, well, then that is a Wikipedia-programming improvement opportunity, not an article’s reason to be deleted.

Southamerica2010 (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your querulous nattering is not adding anything to the discussion. If you want those lists to be kept, just provide a sensible argument for why they should be.--Nero the second (talk) 15:56, 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. Wifione ^Message 14:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of current Indian pretenders[edit]

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

This is nominally a list of "Indian pretenders". There are two problems with this "list". The first is that, as discussed on the talk page, it appears that the very concept of there being "pretenders" is original research advanced by one user's interpretation of primary sources (Indian law), while numerous secondary sources state that all of the titles where abolished and thus have no validity. The second problem is that the list is a blatant WP:BLP violation, because all of its sources are self-published genealogical websites. In the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 103#Self-published royalty websites, it was found that such websites do not meet the requirements of WP:BLPSPS, and, as such, may not be used to support claims about living people. As such, there actually is no list here. Note that I am not saying that this needs to be "cleaned up" and "sourced better". I'm saying it is entirely lacking in legitimate sources for any of the actual people on the list. Perhaps there is space in Wikipedia (either standalone or in a section of some article) about the idea of ex-royalty in India, but there is no space for an unsourced BLP list. Finally, note that User:Night w has already asked on the talk page for this to be userfied, but I must strongly urge the closing admin (assuming this is deleted) to not do so, because WP:BLP applies in all namespaces, so this BLP-violating list cannot be hosted anywhere on Wikipedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G7, if the talk page can be disregarded. Qwyrxian, please redact the "first problem" as that is not "my interpretation"—it is cited in the article to a secondary source. Nightw 04:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article is NOT eligible for G7 Speedy Delete as you are not the only substantive contributor to the talk page - sorry! But we can probably delete it on other grounds. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As Qwyrxian points out above, none of the (multitude) of sources are reliable because they are all either primary sources (dictionary entries, Indian constitution) or unreliable (genealogy sites). Without sources, the text on the face of it is both (a) original research and (b) dealing with a topic which is fundamentally POV. (An example of the same material covered in an NPOV way might be "list of current claimants to Indian thrones" or suchlike, including the successful claimants, or "list of unrecognised claimants to Indian thrones", with the caveat that the list would have to include only people who are themselves notable or it would simply be an endless list of the mentally ill.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How does the definition of claimant differ from that of pretender? They mean exactly the same thing, except that pretender is the terminology used in contexts of royalty. Nightw 11:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Pretender" makes a judgement about the strength and validity of their claim, "claimant" does not. You could certainly use "pretender", you'd just need to be able to source an overwhelming consensus of reliable sources rejecting their claim for each claimant. That's probably possible for most; for some who have adherents who support their claim, maybe not (from their perspective, they're the rightful claimant and the current seat is the pretender). - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you've misunderstood the definition of pretender being used here. They're all abolished thrones so there's no incumbent to contest the claim with. They're all undoubtedly the rightful claimants. Nightw 15:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Let me go through the sources used here:

The Last Nizam: An Indian Prince in the Australian Outback - This comes from a biography of Karan Singh, used to support his current political standing and status claims.
Several dictionaries and books for referencing - For defining things, but doesn't support notability of the topic.
The Royal Ark - A personal website used for supporting passing of laws and family histories, among other things. Although the website's creator does list sources, they are not specifically attributed to the statements on the website, making fact-checking tedious, if not impossible.
Genealogical Gleanings - A genealogy website that attributes several, if not all of its listings to The Golden Book of India (why not just cite the book instead of the website?). However, looking at the introduction of the book, it reads the following:

No official authority whatever attaches to this work, or to any statement in it.

If that's not a textbook example of unreliability, you can call me crazy.

Almanach de Bruxelles - Inaccessible except to subscribers, and only attributed to one of the individuals listed on the page.
Princes of Arcot website - Primary source, no substantive evidence / sourcing found.
The Maharajah of Jodhpur: The Legacy Lives On.... - This film is apparently source material for someone's claim to fame. But it's unclear whether it is a documentary. The film's synopsis (written by Anonymous on IMDB, of course) reads the following:

The Maharaja of Jodhpur' is an exclusive documentation of the life of one of India's most distinguished royals...It's the story of his quest to reinvent his role and relevance in democratic, republican India and of his struggle to preserve a glorious way of life.

To me, this hardly like an NPOV piece, so I don't put a lot of weight onto this film as a reliable source.

The Royal Family of Kutlehar website - Another primary source page.

There are a few other decent newspaper articles ([26] [27]), but only two of them really discuss a legitimate claim in detail ([28] [29]). Without more consistent sources like these ones, there just isn't enough material for this topic. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find those references to The Golden Book of India are just attributed to some dates. The website actually clusters all of its sources together [30] like The Royal Ark does. Nightw 08:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This page is based on original research. The reliable sources have interpreted the 26th Amendment of India's Constitution to have abolished all titles, privileges, and remunerations (privy purses) associated with princely India. Moreover, the term "pretender" is not used in the reliable secondary literature for descendants of Indian princes. Claiming that all but five privy purses were abolished is as ludicrous as claiming, "John Smith is the pretender to the office of Secretary of State of the Confederate States of America because if you examine the text of Lee's surrender, you'll notice ...." Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which (though I'm not sure why as it's entirely irrelevant to this article), you haven't provided any sources that show they were all abolished as you claim, nor have you responded to the sources I provided showing exceptions. Nightw 13:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for the reasons of original research & BLP violations already referred to by others above, but also because this simply is not a notable topic: the people listed are "pretenders" to thing that do not exist any more & any claims made are pure vanity. - Sitush (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:OR.Bunser (talk) 20:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: however many unreliable sources are quoted (unreliable on this point, at least) the princely (to use the traditional shorthand) titles were never abolished, and this is a very interesting page. I do accept that there is a problem with the word "pretenders", which implies some active pursuit of thrones which no longer exist. Some of those listed have even stated that they make no claim to princely status. If not deleted, a change of name is needed. Moonraker (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR and WP:POV based on dubious sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above WP:OR and WP:POV. created seems for vanity. Also un-reliable sources, as discussed above.Jethwarp (talk) 13:33, 16 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. Wifione ^Message 14:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simeon Morrow[edit]

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

Lots of self-promotion, but nothing indicates encyclopedic merit. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that it is a lot of self-promotion, but rather information about the career of an upcoming young orchestral director who has had several years of experience and recognition in the music field. The article should not be deleted in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ar.marinelli (talk • contribs) 11:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC) — Ar.marinelli (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please look at WP:CREATIVE and WP:MUSIC and point to independent, reliable sources which satisfy the criteria in either of them. EEng (talk) 13:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only sources are a local newspaper, school paper, and so on, giving routine coverage to a youth concert etc. EEng (talk) 02:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete clear failure of WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 06:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real claim of notability.--Kylfingers (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We read and confirmed notability of musician and conductor before writing the Wiki page. The articles and sources are also well-known magazines, newspapers and websites as are the nominations and positions currently held by this Maestro. --Ar.marinelli (talk) 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. You said that already above. In response I asked you to point to the sources satisfying WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC or any other notability guideline. You haven't done that, from which I conclude you know of no such sources. EEng (talk) 01:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage from independent reliable third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:47, 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Project Nova[edit]

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

Non-notable unreleased video game with no sources that can be found to satisfy WP:GNG. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. – Richard BB 00:28, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Contested double-prod per "Non-notable unreleased video game with no sources that I can find to satisfy WP:GNG. Fails WP:CRYSTAL." — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized this wasn't listed in AfD log. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:15, 9 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) 15:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely not notable. -Vaarsivius (Talk to me.) 15:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CRYSTAL, virtually nothing is known about it, it doesn't even have a proper title, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 15:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is unsourced, with no proof of notability. The game is unreleased and, as is perhaps the one thing the article successfully manages to show, next-to-nothing is known about it. No real reason to keep it. Hammerbrodude (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in-depth coverage from independent reliable third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:47, 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.