< 6 October	8 October >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. For now, I can somehow see a consensus for keeping the article, there should be a specific notability guideline for computer devices, but as per WP:GNG, the article seems to pass it. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 15:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iriver Story[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:GNG. If there is a more specific notability guideline for a computer device, I couldn't find it. Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This e-book reader running Google software has been reviewed by reliable electronics publications such as PC Magazine, Ars Technica, PC World, Cnet, Engadget, Laptop Magazine and Gizmodo. Clearly, these reviews are sufficient to establish notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The reviews, which aren't in the article, would only establish a "presumption" of notability. I've started a thread at WP:N/N about this issue. I'm actually far more interested in the global issue of notability of computer hardware and software than whether this particular article is kept or deleted.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:GNG. Warden (talk) 08:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence that the topic satisfies WP:GNG. Note that reviews don't count towards notability if they are just recycled press releases (which, sadly, many are these days). Such reviews are not independant of the subject. To judge whether this is the case people need to read the reviews, which are currently not discussed or even mentioned anywhere in the article. The article would be much improved by the addition of a "Reception" section discussing any independant reviews. HairyWombat 17:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment HairyWombat may be right about some electronics reviews, but as that editor stated, people need to read the reviews to determine whether they are independent or just "recycled press releases". I have actually read the reviews, and the majority are clearly independent since they criticize the device in ways that no paid press release writer ever would. As HairyWombat suggested, I have added a "Reception" section to the article with brief quotes from five independent reviews demonstrating notability and neutral coverage of this device. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The reviews now listed in the article are not recycled press releases. For example, CNET has an Editor review, ad well as user reviews. User reviews don't establish notability, but an editor review does, and the CNET review for the iRevier Story is just that -- an editor review. -- Whpq (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of All My Children characters (or List of All My Children miscellaneous characters, whichever is better). There are quite a number of Keeps here but absolutely none of them give any policy-based reason why such an effectively unsourced article should not be where it belongs; i.e. in a character list. There appear to be a lot more articles on characters from this series that should be similarly merged. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional men of All My Children, volume 1[edit]

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

This article lacks notability establishment and third-party sources. Written like a biography of a fictional character of cancelled soap All My Children. Also, the content may have plagiarized from other websites, unless I'm wrong. Self-publications are insufficient to have this article stand on its own; at least they help per WP:SELFPUB Same reason for another article below:

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

~~--Gh87 (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)~~ They were previously PRODded; removed by IP editor who claimed that they are "notable". Still, even TV.com and publications that are soap-oriented are insufficient; even TV.com is user-submitted. ~~--Gh87 (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)~~ As Jfgslo said, the articles are fully plot-oriented for fictional characters. I vote delete all. --Gh87 (talk) 08:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: All articles mentioned should be kept due to their significance and valuable information. They are well-known and exhibit enough notability to remain as individual articles.Casanova88 (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: The characters do not meet the general notability guideline and their unreferenced articles are plot-only descriptions of a fictional work. Jfgslo (talk) 07:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as failing WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: All of these articles are about noteworthy and popular characters that served a major purpose to the show and have a large following. They are relevant and well-known and include correct information in the articles that is notable for them to remain as individual articles.149.4.206.16 (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:N or any other "Wikipedia:" articles? These articles either are not cited or have no significance from the third-party sources. Maybe you are so devoted to soap operas and have little knowledge about how Wikipedia works, unless I'm wrong as you want to prove. --Gh87 (talk) 17:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to an appropriate character list for the series. This is yet another example of content that should have been dealt with through normal editing and discussion rather than AFD. We document main and recurring characters for notable series as part of our coverage of those series, if only to list them and the actor and describe them in brief, regardless of whether the character itself merits a standalone article, and with editorial judgment employed as to whether it's also worthwhile to list characters who only appeared in one episode. Whether that is done in a standalone list or within the article on the series itself is purely a matter of space concerns, and a show that lasted for forty-one years (particularly one with the ensemble soap opera format) obviously is going to have too many characters for the parent article to incorporate. That the show is now canceled is completely irrelevant to any consideration here, so I don't know why Gh87 keeps mentioning that in all of his deletion noms related to this show. postdlf (talk) 16:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the consensus? Also, I have seen the similar arguments in other AFDs of soap-related articles. Why would you post the same argument that claims "notability", "reliability" and "significance" that the articles could not establish at this time? Are unreferenced character background and plot enough to you? Also, articles should avoid copyright violations; I'm uncertain about the articles' writings. List of All My Children miscellaneous characters#Phil Brent has been tagged for violating copyrights; should you remove the tag without proper reasoning? Should you contact the administrators about this? --Gh87 (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on whether there is a copyvio because I haven't investigated that, as it's a separate issue from whether these subjects should be covered in some way on WP. If there is a copyvio, it should be removed by removing the copyvio text from the article(s) if possible, or the article deleted if the copyvio is too substantial a part of its history.
Re: "Have you read the consensus", I obviously disagree with your rationale and that of the other two delete !voters (little more than WP:VAGUEWAVEs, to be fair), and my comments and arguments are going to factor into whatever consensus this AFD is closed with. My comments, further, are more in line with the consensus repeatedly demonstrated for content of this kind, and what I describe is standard operating procedure for TV series characters and lists. It doesn't matter whether it's unreferenced at this time; the standard is whether it is verifiable, not verified. postdlf (talk) 22:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: These characters you have nominated have still very important ties to the canvas and the pages must remain intact. Jester66 (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AADD about arguments. Are the "canvas", which must be clarified while I was reading the definitions, and the awareness from soap dedicators legitimate enough to have these articles kept? --Gh87 (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge no argument against merging has been given. Individual pieces of content in an article are not subject to WP:N; plot-only refers to total Wikipedia coverage, not individual break-out articles. And the assertion that publications dealing with soap are not RSs is as nonsensical as saying that publication dealing with politics are not usable sources for politicians--it's the old claim that only material in general newspapers and magazines count, which would reduce Wikipedia to a very much abridged encyclopedia . The basic principle of coverage is the basic principle of Wikipedia: a comprehensive encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : These characters were and still are very important parts of the, whether it has been canelled or not. Just because the series has been cancelled doesn't mean they are no longer relevant. And if the shows will be airing online in early 2012, then why go through the trouble of deleting all these pages when viewers that use wikipedia will come back to look at the articles. Those people who actually edit will start and edit war and it will be one big mess, one day the article is there, another day it is a redirect. I think the articles should stay.--Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 22:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This leaves improvement as the way to go, or a renomination in a few months if improvement appears infeasible. Sandstein 13:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boiler design[edit]

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

An article devoid of any worthwhile structure or content. This is one of many articles, almost all equally poor, created as part of coursework for an Indian college. See Wikipedia:India Education Program/Courses/Fall 2011/Machine Drawing and Computer Graphics and WP:Ambassadors. This project has failed and has now become harmful to the broader goals of the encyclopedia. It's time to start cleaning up afterwards. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Boiler, which seems to contain more on boiler design than this does. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic has great notability - see sources such as The design of steam boilers and pressure vessels and Basics of boiler and HRSG design. The rest is a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 08:58, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please care to point out the sections within this article that are helpful to an understanding of boiler design, and thus worthy of preservation. I agree that boiler design is potentially a worthy topic for WP, but there's just nothing in here worth having. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of them. For instance, consider the section in which we are told that a blow-off cock is required by the Indian Boiler Act and its purpose is explained. If we should doubt these facts, they may be verified by reference to a work such as this. The boiler article says something of this but gives it a quite different name (continuous blowdown valve) and does not explain the legal requirement. We should therefore retain all this valuable information per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 11:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We've long had glossary of boiler terminology. This covers worthwhile topics such as fusible plug, blow-down cock and the rest. Although these components are indeed important and worthy of coverage, they have little influence on the design of boilers. We should not excuse this article its off-topic digressions that exist solely to pad it, when the topic itself is being failed so badly. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of a glossary is to support articles, not to contain essential details. A blow-off cock is not a digression but a vital component and so forms a fundamental part of the design. It should also be noted that you have a history of editing that glossary article but have not mentioned your special interest in this topic. This nomination seems to be improper ownership behaviour contrary to our behavioural guidelines. Warden (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So if you dislike the glossary so much, feel free to AfD it. Likewise you might enjoy raising this at AN/I and getting me topic banned for the crime of knowing something about a subject.

Have you ever sat down and really thought about what you're in favour of and trying to achieve here? The absolutist retention of all articles, no matter how bad they are? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warden, please drop the bad faith assumptions. Andy is working on several problem articles produced by the Indian Eduction Programme to improve them. We've undeleted one of them for him to work on today. Discuss the article and not the editors. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an assumption - it is clear from the nomination which says essentially nothing about the content - just a blanket condemnation which is blatantly false. The main point of the nomination is to explain who wrote the article and that they are bad people who must be stopped. The nomination is an ad hominem attack and does not reference any deletion policy. It is quite improper, being contrary to Wikipedia's fundamental policies and principles, and seems intended to disrupt a good faith outreach project sponsored by the Foundation and a respectable educational institution. Warden (talk) 07:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then have the good grace to state that, and AGF without making presumptions of BF by editors. It's not necessary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To explain the causality here, I have no previous connection with the Indian project but I do mostly write content on engineering history. The Pune college engineering course thus put up several articles for creation where I'd already worked on, or even written from scratch, an article there already. This brought their project, and in turn the problems with it, to my attention. As to boilers, then I'm also the author of most of the content under Category:Boilers (although this apparently makes me an unfit person to work on such articles!).

We could use an article on boiler design. This isn't it. The process by which we acquired this article is so poor and so riddled with copyvios, that we would be best served by deleting the whole article (and this is one of several). There's no useful content in here, there's certainly no useful structure (have you tried to read this article?) and such problems are never solved on WP by piecemeal editing, only by re-planning an article from scratch. We might choose to recycle parts of this article into a real article, but given the low quality of what's there and the risk of copyvios too (read the Ambassadors pages for just how bad this is), it's not worth the task of re-using and a clean start is just quicker and easier.

The Colonel's next step is usually (for we've been here before) to claim that I should WP:SOFIXIT myself. There are the usual reasons why not - because I'm busy anyway, because it's risky to work on something at AfD, because I've published Yarrow boiler already this week if he wants to claim again that I haven't completed my assigned work quota. Mostly though I left the Pune articles well alone because they're supposed to be student assignments and we ought to give the students a chance to write them independently. They have however had this chance and blown it in a mess of wiki-harmful copyvios, so now it's time to act preventatively. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:25, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect (but not a very useful one) or change to stub (but not useful if it just duplicates a section of Boiler and there's quite a few articles like this to work through). Anything that's worth keeping in this could be moved into Boiler. Only reason to keep would be as an example of the folly of telling students (especially those with limited English) to write their essays in WP. DexDor (talk) 09:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Student homework assignment. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How would this disqualify topic notability for inclusion in Wikipedia? Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See AfD rationale, and Wikipedia talk:India Education Program and you'll undertstand the problem. AfD is not only a discussion about notability, but also about the suitability for inclusion of articles that don't meet the strict categories of CSD.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination doesn't make a policy-based argument either. All you've got is an argument to avoid. Warden (talk) 07:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

argument to avoid is an essay, but since you mention it: When the article is a very badly-written article on a small aspect of a bigger field, deleting or redirecting some of the articles after merging any useful content to a more general article is often a much better choice than having hundreds of articles and only a handful of editors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to save in this essay and this is apparently not an encyclopedic topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not so — boiler design is discussed in detail in numerous encyclopedia. For example, in the Encyclopedia Americana: "Boiler Design. — In boiler design, careful consideration continued to be given to the following factors : maximum firebox volume, evaporation surface, and gas area through the tubes and flues ; relatively short tubes in combination with ...". Note also that User:SummerPhD has been engaged in petty conflict with me for several days now and his counterfactual contribution here seems to be a part of this activity. Warden (talk) 08:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment - I've added some book sources to a new Further reading section of the article:

Buecker, Brad (2002.) "Basics of boiler and HRSG design." PennWell Corporation. ISBN 0-87814-795-0
Malek, Mohammad A. (2005.) "Power boiler design, inspection, and repair: ASME code simplified." McGraw-Hill. ISBN
Stromeyer, C.E. (1893.) "Marine boiler management and construction." Longmans, Green, and Co.

Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Look at what this article has in it.

   1 Considerations in boiler design
   2 Pre-requisites in a boiler design
   3 General design procedure of boiler
   4 Manufacturing techniques
   5 Material selection
   6 Types of boiler accessories and mountings
   7 Common instrumentation and control systems used in boilers
   8 Advantages and disadvantages of contemporary boilers
   9 Testing of boilers
   10 Recent developments boiler design
   11 References
   12 Further reading
   13 External links

And compare that with what is in boiler. I don't see any duplicate content here. Most of it would only fit here, not there. This works best as a separate article. Sources seemed to have been found already. Dream Focus 04:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Don't fall in love with the content. If history is any guide, most of it is copyright violations that will have to be deleted. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Topic has been historically covered (see book links I provided above) in tertiary sources. Topic appears to be encyclopedic. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 23:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no serious claim that this isn't a good topic, merely that this is a non-article. The major omissions of significant topics are bad enough to make the article unworkable. The coverage of what is here is almost childish in its simplicity. Its prose, simply as a piece of writing, conveys nothing. I dare say that any editor with some experience of "car repair" or home maintenance could have written an article just as good as this from memory and basic common sense, without even needing to study a single source, text or reference on boilers themselves. This looks like an article, but it isn't an article. If you read this article, just what did you learn about boiler design? There's nothing, and still nothing, in here! Andy Dingley (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not cleanup and you can't delete something because you don't like it. AFD is a last resort, not a first. It is a good topic, it has proven itself a notable one as well, and it has valid content in it. Are you not able to understand something if the information isn't written in a certain way? Dream Focus 01:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, AfD is not cleanup. This article, to continue as a valuable article, would require cleanup. AfD and ARS "rescue" cannot deliver this. This is why we're better deleting.

Cleaning this article into an adequate form requires two initial steps: some understanding of the topic content, then an article plan that gives some coherent, readable structure by which to explain this. It's hard to tack such things on afterwards, I've never seen it achieved through ARS' hurried cross-discipline copyediting. It certainly hasn't happened here, despite considerable recent change. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your perfectionist ideal hasn't achieved much either. There's only one FA about design and that's Intelligent design! Presumably it has reached a high level of quality because it's a battleground, not because it was crafted by a single gifted editor. That's the issue with that topic - whether you can achieve sophistication and complexity by means of incremental change and mutation or whether a god-like designer is required to provide inspiration and insight. Wikipedia's editing model is more like evolution than fiat lux and our fundamental principles include "Your efforts do not need to be perfect" and "a welcoming and collegial editorial environment.". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonel Warden (talk • contribs)

Delete student homework. I'm pretty sure they didn't pass. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this has potential to be an article, which is the usual standard for keeping it. I am an eventualist - give this article a chance. I know nothing about the topic, so I may not be the best user to edit it. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is not well done, but it does have reliable sources. Poor quality means we need rewriting, more material with sources, in general, more work to improve the quality. Deletion is not a remedy when the topic is worthwhile and the sources are available. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep admitted to be a notable topic. The article is clearly informative. There are hundreds of possible references over two centuries--very reasonably so, as this was the major technical problem during the early part of the Industrial revolution. I think it needs to be rewritten in a format that will look less like an outline, but that;s just a matter of editing. A.D.'s argument that it is incapable of improvement does not seem reasonable to me. Any ordinarily intelligent person who knows high school math can understand the subject . It's already in a basically radable structure, and there's hundreds of regular editors here skilled enough in organization to improve it. The argument that if the improvement doesn't happen in 7 days it will never happen afterwards is belied by the history of almost every major article on Wikipedia--and is an argument contrary to the basic concept of making an encyclopedia by crowd-sourcing. That, by necessity, happens over time. We're not Wikinews. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

European Universities Games[edit]

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

Sports competition. No attempt made to provide evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N. Unable to find independent WP:RS with no claims of notability--Michaela den (talk) 10:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a future event that does not appear to have garnered much coverage. There is this article in a university magazine. And I am not sure what sort of publication this is. In any case, that's not the sort of coverage that would make me say that a future event is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see lots of primary and unreliable sources in the tl;dr linkspam. Nothing convinces me that reliable sources establishing significant notability exist. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This is a popular article – before the first version was deleted it was attracting over 2K hits a day – [4]. Such popularity, however, is not part of our inclusion criteria. Indeed, we are wary of internet memes, and some commentators in this discussion have felt that this subject is simply a flash in the pan. The sources in the article are not top drawer – most in the article are local newspapers, and one is a blog, others I have found are online teen magazines; however, the blog is notable, and the sources are reliable (they have editorial control) and are of a significant number. The coverage in the sources is not top class, but is not trivial, and does indicate an awareness among the target audience of a knowledge of the topic. That is, she is written about in reliable sources as a notable person. I paid attention to concerns about BLP issues, however the article is soberly and carefully written, firmly sourced, and avoids any dubious scandal. On a number count, the delete !votes are slightly higher than the keep !votes, though a number of the keeps are better argued, while some delete votes don’t fully support their “not notable” assertions, or are hesitant – suggesting that the article can be reinstated later. The subject is likely to be of passing interest; however, the commentary on the subject will be a lasting record, and it is that commentary that we are collecting and summarising here on Wikipedia. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jenna Rose[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I had submitted this article the first time it went to AfD and it was deleted because the subject fails to meet the notability criteria for a Biography of a Living Person.

The article has since been recreated, with much of the same information, even though nothing else has been published about the subject. The article went to AfD again, but no consensus was reached.

I am submitting it again, because no effort has been made to cite any information in the article, and no more sources on the subject exist. Much of the information is unverifiable through any secondary published sources, and the article's creator even admitted to be associated with the subject.

Unless someone can site all of the information in the article with secondary published sources, rewrite it so it does not sound like an advertisement, and prove that the subject meets the notability guidelines, I feel the article should be deleted until the subject does meet the guidelines. Rogerthat94 (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To User:Rogerthat94: What you may have overlooked, is that notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation in an article. I politely urge you to withdraw this 3-week-later premature-renomination as being too soon. lack of immediate effort is not a sound deletion reason, nor is a reason to force cleanup of an article determined by others as improvable over time and through normal editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that there are sources, but they don't give enough information to write an entire article. Perhaps redirecting this page to Rebecca Black - Friday and adding a section on Jenna Rose there would be an appropriate compromise, since most of the coverage seems to be piggybacked off of that. Rogerthat94 (talk) 06:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we also merge William Shatner with Captain Kirk as Kirk is where Shantner has most of his notability? No... because there is information about Shatner and his work that has no place in an article about Kirk. Just so here: there is sourcable information about Jenna Rose that has no place in an article about one of Rebecca Black's works. What does make sense is a wikilink in the Rebecca Black article that leads back to the Jenna Rose article where readers can then learn more about Rose. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Black, Captain Kirk, and William Shatner all fit under the notability guidelines, but I feel that Jenna Rose does not. There is some citeable information, but all of the information from reputable publications is only on the Jeans song, which isn't enough coverage to create an entirely separate article, but would fit in with the article about Friday. The notability guidelines have more criteria than just "is the subject of published sources" for a reason. Rogerthat94 (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... have you read the criteria at WP:ARTIST? The notability SNGs are intended to work in concert with WP:GNG, not in disaharmony, and Jenna Rose DOES meet our inclusion criteria. The point missed that I was trying to clarify is that sourcable biographical information about Jenna Rose and her carrer has no place in some different article about some different topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep and Close AFD as being too soon after the no-consensus keep of last AFD just THREE WEEKS AGO. The better option if one disagrees with an AFD outcome is to wait a reasonable length of time before renominating (and pardon, but I do not think 3 weeks is a long enough period to be considered reasonable), or taking it to DRV if an editor feels there was a flaw in the earlier close per consessus. We can revisit this in a few months... not a few days or a few weeks. With respects, the nominator's reasoning seems to be A) there has not been enough effort since last keep, and B) an apparent wish to use this third AFD in order to force the cleanup that was the seen as possible at the last AFD. And NOTE: Toward WP:NRVE and WP:GNG, we DO have some quite decent reliable independent secondary sources available toward this person and her work: Herald Newsday 1 Newsday 2 Newsday 3 Newsday 4 Patch 1 Patch 2 Patch 3 Leisure and Sports Review We are to respect consensus and understand that addressable issues are reasons to address the issue proactively and not valid reasons to renominate for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not take this to deletion review because there wasn't a flaw with the last debate. There wasn't a consensus so the debate was closed and there was a consensus to delete the article in the first debate. I don't expect the article to be perfected in three weeks, but the fact is nothing is cited and no effort has been made to make it sound less like an advertisement. Rogerthat94 (talk) 06:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your rationale seems to be that while the AFd three weeks ago did not result in the deletion you wished or work to improve the article, and even with your stating you did not expect perfection in three weeks, it should still be deleted per WP:NOEFFORT. The addressable issues such as tone and sourcing not being addressed would seem a far better reason to be proactive and address them, rather than send to AFD because no one else had done it in 20 days. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My main concerns are Wikipedia:Notability and a lack of citeable information, as I have described above. Lack of effort is not a main reason for deleting the article. I understand that things take time to improve, but an article can't improve without enough coverage of the subject. Rogerthat94 (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having myself actually read through the many available sources, I have to strongly disagree. There is PLENTY available with which to improve the article. Please read WP:NRVE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources were already found like the one I found last time [5]. Its too soon to have this back at AFD. Also, sources exist, then they don't have to be in the article. You want them there, then do it yourself, don't waste out time here again. Dream Focus 02:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the information in the article is unverifiable. I have searched for sources to verify the information, but, aside from some trivial information surrounding her "Jeans" song, none exist. Also, there's no reason to be so hostile. Rogerthat94 (talk) 06:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With respects, your google-foo seems to be broken. The multiple sources I offered are not "trivial mentions" in that they address the subject and her works directly and in detail, having the subject meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:CREATIVE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't enough information in those sources to write an entire article. That's why I suggested the redirect to Rebecca Black's song. Rogerthat94 (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I've actually read through the many available sources, and have to strongly disagree. There is LOTS available with which to improve the article. Please pardon me I do not respond further to your own arguments, but it's always better to fix the problem than it is to throw out something that can benefit the project with just a little work Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This nomination is super lame. Don't renominate so soon after a no consensus close unless you have a better rationale. Best to wait a few months, as no harm is really being caused by waiting a more reasonable period of time to see if a consensus will develop on a subsequent AfD. If the nominator wants to improve wikipedia per his profession on his user page, there are 8 million better possible uses of his time. Check out Category:BLP articles lacking sources and get to work.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is harm. Allowing articles that are not referenced, such as this one, to be posted here hurts the reliability of Wikipedia. In addition, it sets up the possibility for slanderous information to be posted, especially in the case of a biography of a living person. I understand that this articles creator personally knows the subject and nothing about this article seems slanderous, but the notability guidelines are very strict for a reason. I understand you don't agree with me, but please try to be civil about it. Rogerthat94 (talk) 06:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The solution is to be a proactive editor and correct a perceived problem. It's never helpful to demand deletion simply because someone else had not the work that one could easily do oneself. And a worry of what someone might or might not do to this or any article in the future is also not a reason to delete. Containing sources never prevents malicious edits or vandalism... prevention is through editors watching articles for such and correcting them IF they occur. We do not delete an article because it "might" be edited maliciously in the future. The best answer to WP:NOEFFORT is WP:SOFIXIT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:03, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting deletion because nobody has taken the time to add information from published woks to the article. I'm suggesting deletion because there isn't enough information in published works to create an article. If there was enough significant coverage to write and article, I would contribute, but all of the publications are just the same information about the "Jeans" song, which isn't enough information to write a whole article. I used the vandalism example only as an example of why keeping uncited information is harmful.

I agree with you that there is some good information on the subject from some extremely reputable published secondary sources, but it isn't enough information to write an entirely separate article. That's why redirecting to Rebecca Black - Friday seems like the best solution. In the future, if more information is published on the subject or she falls under a second notability criteria, I would agree that a separate article would be appropriate. Rogerthat94 (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rogertthat24, get to work, there are 50,000 BLPs that need sourcing more than this one single article, despite your fetish about it.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The listed (though not inline cited) sources do have sufficient content which some rewriting can address quite handily. At this point, more sources would be helpful, but the extant ones are completely satisfactory. Deletion is not the solution to a need for moving sources from general to inline. This repeated, and in my opinion, badgering nomination is premature, and, given the prior non-consensus at 2nd, is unseemly. The nominator is continuing to argue and gainsay every single comment (very much not expected or usual nominator practice) - methinks the nominator doth protest too much. Going forward, I suggest picking up a contributing editor's eyeshade and improving the article or putting down the stick and walking away. All the effort wasted on striving for deletion could have been spent on actual improvements. There is no consensus forming for deletion. Please see that. --Lexein (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Complete agreement. The available sources offer a wealth of information with which to improve this BLP. I rarely make a "keep" statement without also editing an article to address perceived issues, and though involved in addressing other articles during this AFD, I have just neutralized the article's tone and added additional sources to the references section in preparation for more work.[6] The nominator's telling me on my talk page that WP:N is "only a guideline" as if it could be ignored when considering if something is worthy of inclusion, and his repeated and well intended protestations aside, my next step in recommended regular editing will be to use the multiple available significant sources as inline citations. Shall we look to see if the pond has fish? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I completely agree with the badgering observations. Sorry about the comments getting out of hand. Thank you User:MichaelQSchmidt for adding those citations. I have added some citation needed tags, and if someone would be willing to find sources for those, that would make a really good argument for keeping this article.

I understand there isn't a consensus, but this whole discussion is just people repeating "There are articles on her." If you actually read Wikipedia:MUSIC past the first bullet point, it's fairly clear that the subject falls far short of the guidelines. I never said WP:N could be ignored, I called it a guideline, because that's what it is. It goes past "Is the subject of published works" because each case is different. As it was mentioned in the first discussion, most of the articles posted on her were a result of Rebecca Black's song.

It is debatable whether or not Patch meets Wikipedia's criteria or not, because it's basically a local-scale Huffington Post [7]. In addition, that section doesn't seem like a good measure of notability because of the amount of individuals published there. There are, however, some articles from highly notable sources published on her right after Rebecca Black's song, so again, redirection seems like a fair resolution. It is nice for a girl and her family to have a place to promote herself, but that's not Wikipedia's purpose. In responding to this, think about which solution would help keep content on Wikipedia both encyclopedic and relevant. There are a lot of people that would be interested in seeing mention of "My Jeans," but Jenna Rose really hasn't done anything else notable.

Bottom Line - We could redirect this article to Rebecca Black - Friday, and include only the information from highly notable sources, that there would be an interest in. Or, we could keep this article and have to keep some uncited information and some information from Patch, despite the subject having done nothing else notable. Rogerthat94 (talk) 04:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your "bottom line" has been dealt with before: A redirect to a nonrelated article does not improve the encyclopedia nor aid a reader's understanding of the specific topic being discussed. And just what is your fascination with Rebecca Black? While you are always welcome to expand and source her article, it is illogical to suggest something that would degrade her article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That no one agrees with your premature renomination does not mean there is no consesnsus... quite the opposite. And when a number of editors state that multiple independent secondary sources speaking directly toward the artist and her work have her meet notability criteria, THAT is how consensus is created, per guideline and policy. Your not agreeing with other's interpretation of guideline and policy do not make them incorrect in their evaluations of sources or guideline. Please... read WP:CONSENSUS to better undertstand just what it is and how it is created. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And toward WP:MUSICBIO of which you tried to mis-instruct me on my talk page,[8] you are misinterpreting it to be exclusionary, and it is not. You indicate that editors haveto consider inapplicable "bullet" sub-points, when that section itself instructs that they need not do so. The bulleted section to which you refer specifically begins "A musician or ensemble... may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:". It does not say all. It does not say some. It simply states "at least one". In a nutshell, if even one "bullet point" is applicable, editors need not consider others that may not apply. If she missed on the first or third or last, then editors may check the others to see if one of them might be met. Meeting more than one is NOT required. AND, most cogently, the VERY first bullet, the one she meets, follows the GNG in it stating "Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself." As the sources available for the Jenna Rose article are multiple, non-trivial, published, secondary, and independent, MUSICBIO bullet one shows her as notable enough for Wikipedia. And if MUSICBIO bullet one is met, there is no requirement that bullets two through seven need also be. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patch.org is a legitimate local news umbrella organization, see [9]. For the life of me I can't figure out why you care so much about this article, except that people born in 1994 probably care much more (one way or the other) about Jenna Rose than those born a bit earlier!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The level of citation is far improved since its first AfD nomination.--Labattblueboy (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did not intentionally mislead anybody or misrepresent anything. I understand that she meets the basic criteria, but because most of the coverage was sensationalized and there was already a consensus to delete this article, I feel it's important to note that none of the other WP:MUSIC criteria have been met. Patch.com is not an illegitimate source, but it's not nearly as reputable as some of the organizations that published the articles published on the "Jeans" song, which was sensationalized by the Rebecca Black song. I have not suggested the redirect for personal reasons or to degrade either Rebecca Black or Jenna Rose, but rather because I feel, until Jenna Rose establishes more notability, an article on her doesn't have a place on Wikipedia. Her "Jeans" song's popularity is a direct result of Rebecca Black - Friday, so I feel a section on her, that this page would redirect to, would have a perfect place there.

I understand that every other position in this discussion has been to keep the article, but everybody is just giving the same exact reason. Removing articles about minor sensational and unnotable subjects not only prevents unverifiable and useless information from being posted, but it is a deterrent to people posting articles that advertise for subjects they have personal relations to. I hope to get some of the participants from the previous two discussions, who did make comments about how sensational the coverage was to participate before this discussion is closed.

Is a little girl's performances in local theater productions and talent competitions or slowly-growing musical "career" really notable enough for Wikipedia? No. Is there some information about her "Jeans" song that really does have a place here? Yes, but it would be better served in Rebecca Black - Friday. If she does something truly notable, by all means create an article on her. But at this current time, I just don't feel like a separate article on her is appropriate. Perhaps an editor would like to keep a userfied version of the current article, to create an article on her in the future, if she does something notable. Rogerthat94 (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you grant she meets the basic inclusion criteria. A new issue is your denigrating her beginnings, as almost without exception, every entertainer extant had beginnings in non-notable productions, and in a properly balanced and comprehensive BLP, those beginnings are expected to be written of and sourced. While those beginnings do not need assert the notability, their inclusion benefits a reader's understanding of the subject. We do not judge an entertainer's notability based upon "only" their non-notable beginnings. We look beyond the biographical background and instead at the multiple and sourcable projects that bring them coverage of the notability assertions that meet the "basic criteria".
AND, to repeat again, A redirect to a nonrelated article does not improve the encyclopedia nor aid a reader's understanding of the specific topic being discussed. Rebecca and Jenna might one day inhabit a category "Viral video stars", as placing them together in a category under that context might make sense due to the wide media comparisons. But being categorized similarly does not mean it makes sense to place her information in an article about someone else.
As this AFD was begun only 20 days after the 2nd was closed, I would not be opposed to the closer's consideration Incubation for a short while, as it would be in a nonwiki'd location out of article space, and in the place that encourages collaborative efforts in improving the article. Userfication generally does not get the hoped for input and assitance. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every artist has their beginnings, but separate articles on them aren't created until they do something notable. Jenna Rose has not reached this point yet. If she does in the future, of course include information about her beginnings in non-notable productions. At there current time though, a separate article on her is not appropriate. I agree with your incubation suggestion. That way, we can bring this article back to the mainspace if she clearly meets the notability criteria in the future. Rogerthat94 (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to snow - I get it. I'm not a fan of this article. This particular "flash in the pan" was more of a dim glow somewhere beside the pan. The coverage has a strong hometown news tilt and the "semi-viral" bit is almost painful to read. Yeah, it's recentism. Sit on it for a year or so. Work on toning up our notability requirements to clearly reject such "local-kid-gets-mocked-a-little-bit-online" notability. After that, renominate and I'll !vote to kill it twice to make sure it's dead. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I edited my comment above, to prevent the comments from further getting out of hand. Bottom Line: I completely see where you're coming from, but I feel like it's a better idea to redirect this article now and recreate it if the subject becomes notable in the future. It just seems too much like an advertisement to me, even with the revisions and citations. Rogerthat94 (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and LOL Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Rose (2nd nomination), is the nominator has problem with this person or what? Ald™ ¬_¬™ 16:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for goodness sake - leave it be for a couple of months and then nominate it again, at which point it will be clear there isn't any reliable continuing coverage; it's fairly clear there isn't anything you can do against the Crap Article Rescue Squadron in this case. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we all know what will happen again in a few months time if it is nominated, a certain fun-lovin bloc of users will scream bloody murder about "OMG REPEATED NOMINATIONS!!!"
You reckon? Blimey, talk about assuming bad faith ... oh ... wait Black Kite (t) (c) 23:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And is calling six respected admins and 383 contributing editors, whose goal is to improve weak articles in order to improve the project, the "Crap Article Rescue Squadron" to be considered a proper example of an "assumption of good faith"??? Pardon, but ouch! While some very few of the 389 might be editors of which you disapprove, the vast majority of that 389 improve weak articles and improve the project through their efforts. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you well know, I have no problem with the ARS when they are used properly - indeed I regard them as a force for good at that point - as opposed to a collection of bloc voting for crap articles, like this. I have this problem, you see, it's called saying exactly what I think as opposed to a large number of users who say exactly what they think other users want to hear. Black Kite (t) (c)

As MQS said, referring to the "Crap Article Rescue Squadron" in the same line of conversation as your complaint about assuming bad faith = WP:POTKETTLE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See above comment. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I chuckle at your unfortunate use of hyperbole, and thus avoid feeling insulted by the insinuation, could you share where 339 editors have block-voted here? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivial, flash-in-the-pan homebrew starlet gets a little bit of "here's another one" overcharge in the wake of the Rebecca Black meme. Editors fundamentally misinterpret the "presumed" aspect of WP:GNG. I am Jack's Complete Lack of Surprise. Tarc (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per wp:BLP1E] she was a flash-in-the-pan. Lets not make this any worse then it has to be. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Sorry, and while respecting your having the opinion of removing this topic from article space, BLPIE does not apply as she has coverage for multiple items. Such a miaapplication is akin to requesting the removal any artist known "only" for being a musical artist (and THAT list would be unseemly long). Multiple released songs receiving coverage in multiple sources does not equate to being BLP1E.
Futile Delete !vote - The hometown news coverage of this not-quite viral would-be Rebecca Black convinces me that she attracted a little bit of attention in her local area for a brief period of time. I've seen non-notable school-teacher-of-the-year-good-Samaritan-neighborhood-mom types with similar coverage. Not notable at present. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient sources exist to indicate it meets GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and Delete in case it wasn't clear earlier. Never have I seen such a tawdry collection of sources cobbled together and claimed to meet GNG. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never? Are you currently suffering from amnesia?--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have small children and I'm aged over 35. I'm allowed the occasional failure of long-term memory. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I believe its a coping mechanism. Having a 2nd child requires you to forget the sleeplessness of the 1st in most cases :-) --Milowent • ^talkblp-r 23:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem comes with the 3rd that wakes the other two up at random. At that point you'll agree with anything, even if it's "You'd really like to come to our party tomorrow, we're making authentic Kazakhstani food". Black Kite (t) (c) 23:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BLP1E. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC) Incubate change of vote at suggestion of MichaelQSchmidt (on my talk page) for compromise. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Sorry, and while respecting your thoughts toward removing this topic from article space, BLPIE does not apply as she has coverage for multiple items. Such a miaapplication is akin to requesting the removal any artist known "only" for being a musical artist (and THAT list would be unseemly long). Multiple released songs receiving coverage in multiple sources does not equate to being BLP1E. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable - YET. Reinstate when she's more notable, like beyond New York State. She has admitted on youtube that she has not performed outside of the metropolitan NY area. 207.237.248.85 (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, no prejustice against recreation if in the future she meets notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable; closest she ever came to the requisite substantial coverage was for her little bitty BLP1E adventure.--Orange Mike | Talk 21:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure if this vote is really policy based or not, but I think we should have a higher standard of inclusion for minors who are known only for dubious accomplishments than we would typically apply in one of these debates. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Misogyny such as "flash-in-the-pan homebrew starlet" and subjective judgments of whether the subject's contributions to the human race are worthwhile are beside the point. Most everything that "notable" humans have done is useless, but they are notable due to the fact that other humans took notice of them. In 1829, some joker liked to jump off things, and died when he jumped when drunk; he is remembered forever. In 1864, another joker carried around a sack of flour for months after a dumb bet, got so ill from it that he eventually died, and is also remembered forever. Jenna Rose has received attention because she sang a silly song about jeans. Subject meets WP:N (albeit not with flying colors), so there is no reason to delete.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - - I have agreed with "keep", but damnit, Milowent, neither Reuel Colt Gridley nor Sam Patch seem to have died for the reasons you describe. Not good, misrepresenting such details in an earnest discussion of article merits. Through clenched teeth, Lexein (talk) 03:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Please explain how you feel she meets WP:N. (The personal attack, "Misogyny", is both unacceptable and inexplicable.) - SummerPhD (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just basic crossing-the WP:GNG line. "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"; "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". If she wasn't famous for such a frivolous reason, we probably wouldn't have this AFD.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So since you failed to respond when called out for the accusation of misogyny, can we assume that was just a bit of trolling? As for WP:GNG, you do recall what that 2nd "g" stands for, right? That means that we can set it aside if need be to maintain a bit of sanity around here. Sanity is what would carry the day here if, just once, the ARS cronies could stop bean-counting how many reliable sources one finds and could start evaluating just why an encyclopedia needs an article on a minor who is being talked about by adults for being a bad singer. Tarc (talk) 00:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was calling me out? I though it was calling you out, but I know you pride yourself on your snarky comments like "flash-in-the-pan homebrew starlet". I often chuckle at your snark myself, even when you are saying that articles should "die in a fire" and are saying awful things about ARS. But this isn't about "ARS cronies", its about subjective evaluations that Jenna Rose is not worthy of having an article despite meeting GNG. COI editors have already made clear that she wants the article, so the paternalistic concerns are apparently not of concern to her. Ultimately, Jenna Rose is not especially notable, but I think she's sufficiently notable to keep, and I see no benefit from deletion. You disagree here. In some cases you agree with me to keep (which is phenomenal because you rarely !vote to keep anything), and in some cases I don't oppose deletion.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists - those comparisons seem like a bit of a stretch. Rogerthat94 (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that, subjectively, why should Sam Patch have an article? Or Mary Toft? They were Jenna Roses in their day. The beauty of Wikipedia is the beauty of Herodotus, we can have such articles and they don't interfere with our in-depth serious articles. We can have such articles and they add detail to the largest compendium of human knowledge ever assembled. When we remove some of that knowledge, we should ask why its a good idea. Are you better off if all knowledge of Sam Patch is obliterated?--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Patch has something that Jenna Rose does not... (though it seems like lots of Jenna's have arisen, at least in romance novels.) Drmies (talk) 18:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As much as I'd like to hang with MQS and Milowent, I can't. Not notable, meager references, an inflated article. Drmies (talk) 03:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Brutus. :-)--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Milowent, with friends like me... Drmies (talk) 04:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per coverage in Newsday (4 references in article) & LI Herald source in article. Ongoing news coverage. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the coverage. Despite the young age of the subject, I don't think it is a question of BLP. The basic test of whether our article can do any harm is not met--given that she and her family are apparently foolish enough to want to create further attention to her, as shown by her continuing after the first video. DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although it can certainly be created if more notability is gained. Yaksar (let's chat) 07:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References are near exclusively local, and fail to demonstrate notability in a wide sense. Mark Arsten has a point. Can we not exercise just a little bit of discretion in cases where a non-notable pre-teen girl makes an arse of herself and has to live with a WP article on it for the rest of her life? To the extent that the GNG is met, and it would only be barely met, we must remember that the GNG only creates a presumption of notability. That presumption should be set aside in the circumstances.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But it would seem to me that the presemption has not been rebutted, and opinions toward presumption seem to be that such presumption can simply be ignored if one chooses to not accept it nor actually rebut it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not the presumption has been "rebutted" is your opinion. In any case, I never said it had been rebutted, only that it should be set aside. Which are two different things. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before we get too paternalistic as a justification for deletion, keep in mind that someone associated with the subject has indicated she approves of having an article. She has also received international coverage, but the local news sources are the most thorough.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 05:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really fair to use what a COI unregistered user says in you argument? While I agree that the article's creator probably did create this, as he/she said, to promote the subject, anybody could claim this. David Goodman made the best point, but she seems to have stopped after the third song. The international article is really piggybacked off of Rebecca Black. It, as well as the Newsday source, also existed when the delete consensus was reached the first time. Rogerthat94 (talk) 06:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, is it really fair to rely on anything you say considering your peculiar dislike of Jenna Rose to the exclusion of the other 3,750,000 articles on wikipedia? Every edit you've done in the past few months is about Jenna Rose. Jenna Rose has been in the news just this month due to her new release.[10].--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I'd ignore a comment like this, but my integrity is being questioned and I don't appreciate it. Milowent's claim about my contribution history is untrue. I have no dislike of Jenna Rose, I just feel this article should be deleted per Wikipedia policy. What about her new song is notable enough for Wikipedia? There are plenty of non-notable artists being covered in local papers. Rogerthat94 (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rogerthat94 Sorry, since you first nom'd Jenna Rose 18 May 2011, you've made 182 edits as a registered user, and 76 of them have involved Jenna Rose. Since this last nom 7 Oct 2011 until this moment, you've made 66 edits, 54 of which have involved Jenna Rose, or 82%. That's rather a lot about a single issue.
Milowent - let's accumulate those international sources, please, in a new section ~~here in Talk~~ at Talk:Jenna Rose. --Lexein (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lexein, I would be happy to compile the international reporting, but as this AfD has been open 10 days and its an obvious 'no consensus' situation (despite subjective distate for the subject), hopefully an admin can close this first.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(amended above) Let's accumulate them at Talk:Jenna Rose then. --Lexein (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't claim to be an active editor, and you can definitely manipulate the numbers against me, but my point is that it's unfair to say "Every edit you've done in the past few months is about Jenna Rose." I try to improve articles whenever I see problems. Either way, this argument doesn't belong in this discussion. Continue it on my talk page if you have to. I shouldn't have even responded to the attack in the first place. Rogerthat94 (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm A) my point was, sadly, missed. B) I'm not at all fond of extending discussions to multiple locations. --Lexein (talk) 06:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A couple of suggestions for improvements to the article, if it's kept (and as much as I disagree with it, that seems to be the way the wind is blowing): Stuartyeates (talk) 23:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(a) the Filmography table needs to do a better job of conveying the extent of coverage and the relative notability of the work;

(b) the Singles table needs to include more information (views / likes / whatever);

(c) more categories need to be added;

(d) the career section should be called performance or something since career (according to the OED) relates to professional life or employment which doesn't doesn't seem to apply here (I'm not seeing an assertion that she's doing this professionally);

(e) if the page is called Jenna Rose then the subject should not be called Swerdlow throughout the article, that's just plain confusing.

I've copied this to Talk:Jenna Rose and replied there. --Lexein (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Borderline advertisement + all references in the same time zone + recentism = non-notable. →Σ τ c. 06:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon, but as tone was addressable through regular editing, it's no more an "advertisement" than any other article informing a reader about a topic. Had the "local" coverage only been to some backwater small town, a case for coverage being "limited" might have been reasonable, but initial coverage was in a newspaper with the 11th-highest circulation in the United States, and the highest among suburban newspapers... so not exactly a neighborhood gazette... and as initial coverage began in Long Island (which with a population of 7.5 million, is the most populated island in any U.S. state or territory and also the 17th most populous island in the world), one has to consider if "local" to nearly 8 million people is a dismissable demographic... and as has been shown above, her coverage is now going international. And toward recentism, and with respects... this is 2011 and she first received public recognition in 2009 for her "contributions to the performing arts community". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see nothing wrong with the article – and a previous nomination, which occurred very recently, failed to reach consensus. Also, there is significant coverage in reliable third party resources, such as Newsday. -- $Bryce Wilson | talk$ 13:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm McKay[edit]

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

The author of this autobiography removed a prod which said "no evidence of notability" but apparently thinks he is exempt from providing such evidence. (If the decision is delete, User:Malcolmgmckay should also be deleted.) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Highly notable person who suitability for inclusion should be beyond doubt. The deletion process should not be our first resort when a clearly notable person provides useful content in problematic form. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A cursory check for sources finds plenty of evidence of notability, some of which has been referenced in the article by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. The nominator apparently thinks he is exempt from the requirement to spend a few seconds checking before nominating for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite the main part of the article is totally unsourced, the subject appears clearly notable. --Cavarrone (talk) 09:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of temperature increase on earthquake frequency[edit]

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

PROD declined by creator, but this still looks like a mass of original research. Courcelles 22:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well I'd say so. Looks like a big bunch of Original Research thrown together. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 22:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The author of this article has apparently had this research published in no less than four places but since he provides no evidence that anyone has taken any notice of his papers, we can delete it as original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—appears to be OR/SYNTH. Not to be mistaken for Pastafarianism. Regards, RJH (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of a big bowl of alphabet soup: WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, a distinct smell of WP:ESSAY, probably WP:FRINGE, I could probably go on but I think I've made my point. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. The first author of the four papers referenced in the article is very likely the same person as Usman727, the creator of the article, hence WP:COI applies. There is also no review of other available literature so fails WP:NPOV. However, I have seen other papers that suggest that global warming and increasing temperatures will increase seismic activity due to melting glaciers etc. having an effect on geophysical processes such as tectonic uplift. See this guardian report or here which was published in Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, Ser. A. So it is worth a mention somewhere on wikipedia, but this article is purely self promotion of some rather low profile publications and conference proceedings.Polyamorph (talk) 08:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Not Even Wrong. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was this shall, indeed, be deleted. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lia Marie Johnson[edit]

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

This article has been speedily deleted 5 times since March 2010, including yesterday. It was Proposed for deletion but this was opposed. I see nothing to indicate that she meets the notability criteria (and especially the criteria for entertainers), and cannot find significant coverage of her at reliable sources which are independent of the subject. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This SHALL NOT BE Deleted!
REALLY? You have no idea of how many people follow her facebook page!

Lala,

|=ANTAG£JAPANR0X (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It shall not be deleted? At the moment, we have no way of knowing whether it shall be deleted or not, as the community have about 7 days to discuss this. However, having a bit over 40,000 "likes" of her facebook page does not equate in and of itself as an indicator of notability. The top 100 liked facebook pages get more than twice that number of new "likes" per day! On Wikipedia, we need some indication that she meets the notability criteria, which your statement does not give. We also need some signficant coverage at multiple reliable sources which are independent of the subject - which your statement has not provided. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. No attempt made to provide evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArabianKnight24 (talk) 02:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC) I understand that this article has been speedily deleted 5 times. That is quite impressive. However, I (and a few other people) are trying to make an article that really details the notability of Lia Marie Johnson. She is quite "famous", with 40,82 "likes" on Facebook , 14, 782 followers on Twitter, 100,783 subscribers on YouTube, and 19529 friends on YouTube. All these numbers are growing. As I stated before, Lia is an actress who has done a lot of credited work. She appeared a movie that was shown during the EyeGore awards in L.A. She is a favorite on Kids React, a wildly popular series on YouTube. We, Lia's fan-base, are really trying to make a good article on a good person. IF you allow us, we will make this article notable. ArabianKnight24 (talk) 02:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While we welcome enthusiastic editors, Facebook/Twitter/YouTube etc are not considered reliable sources. Has she received significant coverage in reliable sources (for example, national newspapers/magazines)? I searched for such sources, but did not find any. With reference to the EyeGore awards - firstly, I notice there is no article about the awards on Wikipedia, and although the short film Monster in my Swimming Pool won 2011 "Hollywood Horror Nights" Short Film Competition, Johnson herself did not win an award - she appeared on stage with the director to accept the award, but I see no indication that she has won any awards, or that this award meets the criteria for notable awards on Wikipedia. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply (and friendliness :D ). This article http://www.neontommy.com/news/2011/09/stars-screams-and-scares-2011-eyegore-awards mentions Lia at the very end. Like you said, she didn't receive an award herself. And like you also mentioned, she went upstage with the director. To me, it looks like she is definitely heading towards a great career. I understand if she is not "notable" enough for an article yet. However, at some point she will deserve one :) I hope this article doesn't end up getting deleted! Thanks! ArabianKnight24 (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the subject of the article is possibly quite talented and facing a great career, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and we have to go by existing coverage in reliable sources that attest to notability. Sadly, such coverage is still lacking today. --Lambiam 09:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What Rubbish![edit]

Lia is In A popular series!! She has performed a song with a real musicican. She has made a song made "Karma", coming out in music stores soon. It will be also possible for download! I am not British!!! Look at This Search, It says About 533,000 results.That is enough for a girl that is 14!!

Here ^[1]

Here ^[2]

And, here ^[3]

AND OF COURSE^[4]

Research[edit]

|=ANTAG£JAPANR0X (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All good and well, but we require significant coverage in reliable sources. The links you have dredged up only provide shallow coverage in unreliable sources. --Lambiam 12:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But iTunes is a place with REAL shows and REAL music.

FantageJapanRox (talk • contribs) 20:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone with 20 items in their catalog can sign up with iTunes and start selling their music videos there. And if you have only one video, you can pay an iTunes music aggregator to do it for you. There is no editorial control. It is just like self-published books. This means that the iTunes store is not a reliable independent source, period. --Lambiam 22:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright guys. I have to admit, a good point is being made here. While Ms.Johnson is indeed facing a great career, currently she isn't notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I am confused because some actors/actresses who have appeared in one movie have their own article, but whatever. Although Lia does deserve an article, it isn't the right time. I think we should wait a little bit until she is more well known. I mean, just because my sister stars in several commercials, it doesn't mean I'm going to write an article about her. I'm still *neutral* on the subject. ArabianKnight24 (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a generally a disconnect between mid-level youtube popularity and press coverage -- much of this is because youtube popularity is mostly youth-driven, so things like FRED, Ray William Johnson, and The Annoying Orange can be huge, yet all had difficulty in obtaining wikipedia articles because the press is slow to take notice. Lia is currently well below the popularity view-wise and subscriber-wise of those youtubers at the time they finally "stuck" here. Lia could be making major money off her videos before the press notices, so meeting WP:N is going to be difficult for her.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ENT to provide significant contribution with notable productions. Fails WP:MUSICBIO as it says - yet to be professional singer and a single yet to be released! Having followers in blogs and social medias does not make one notable, yet when the time comes and her carrier develops (yet to come) as her supporters state, it should easily meet with the criteria (or reliable sorces are quoted). PF (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. MB (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot believe I am saying this. But DELETE. I tried making a good article on Lia, but obviously no matter what it will be deleted because she isn't notable enough. The time will come when she will be famous enough for a deserving article. Thank you guys! Honestly, I learned a lot from this.ArabianKnight24 (talk) 04:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/salt/move on there is little hope that she is notable --Guerillero | My Talk 05:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. How do I made a word bold on this? ArabianKnight24 (talk) 06:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per |=ANTAG£JAPANR0X. Salt per |=ANTAG£JAPANR0X as well, based on their behavior, unless we want to meet here tomorrow. LoveUxoxo (talk) 06:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. No evidence of notability but lots of evidence that the article will be recreated in the very near future. -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG Farjad0322^{(talk|sign|contribs)} 04:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - fails WP:GNG. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salting rarely works for people like this, because you have Lia Marie Johnson (Youtube), Lia Marie Johnson (singer), Lia Marie Johnson (actress), etc., etc., that will be created, if its really true that this has been deleted multiple times already. The lack of even one substantive news article on her is unlikely to last long however. Any decent PR-minded teen can whip up some local news coverage. If she can't or won't, she'll stay deleted.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No major roles, no independent sources. Edward321 (talk) 00:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright guys, I have a proposal. How about, we keep this article for a month or so. If we (meaning anyone) can find the info that you (people who want to delete this) need, the article stays. However, if we fail, this article may be deleted. However, it is highly likely that someone will make another article. So I am honestly not sure why you gusy keep trying to delete it hahah. Also, I know for a fact that as some point Lia will be notable enough for an article. ArabianKnight24 (talk) 04:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other people agree with you ArabianKnight24, that someday she might be notable. It's only the start of her "career". But the article should come after her notablity, not before it. You agreed right, that right now she isn't notable enough? LoveUxoxo (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THIS SHOULD NOT BE DELETED! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.11.223.0 (talk) 12:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that Lia Marie Johnson isn't "notable" enough for a Wikipedia page, because of all the rules. I understand all your points about how the article should appear after Lia's notability rises, how Wiki isn't a crystal ball, etc. So (and as much as I love Lia MArie Johnson in a non-creepy way), I guess the article will be deleted. I know the time will come when this article will be allowed haha. And Lia, if you are reading this (She definitely noticed this conversation), I'm sorry haha (: So... *Delete ArabianKnight24 (talk) 03:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did a good job trying to show the other side ArabianKnight24, I'm sure she noticed. She definitely owes you a ride in that limo! LoveUxoxo (talk) 03:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Following improvement. Sandstein 13:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Symbols and conventions used in welding documentation[edit]

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

Student essay. Anything useful should be added to the welding article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another of the Indian college project. It's time to clean up these failed articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination seems to be advocating merger rather than deletion. The topic here is notable — see Welding Symbols, for example. The main article about welding says nothing about symbols and notation. Our editing policy is very clear, "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.". Warden (talk) 09:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There is no valid reason for a speedy keep put forth here and, to save you the trouble, it's clearly not snowing either. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SK#1 is "the nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging..." Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 23:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I think "poor" in the policy means articles that can be improved. With articles that are so poor (off-topic, uncited, what is in reasonable English is probably copyvio ... - see Wikipedia talk:Ambassadors#Concerns over impact on article quality) that you'd best start from scratch there seems little point in keeping. DexDor (talk) 10:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my delete as thanks to a number of wikipedians it's becoming an article (still think it might have been better to start from scratch though and not sure it's notable for its own article).DexDor (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What stops us improving this poor article? Where is the policy that says we delete articles of poor quality? Warden (talk) 10:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've asked the massed clueless of ARS to dive in and "rescue" it. One of the articles affected by this same IEP project is Aircraft design process, and we can see from the history and AfD of that article just what a hideous mess you and ARS made of it. Yes, you, and there's a paper trail that shows this before you go bleating off to NPA.

These are technical articles. They require technical knowledge and understanding to write them. Whilst there's no reason why "a layman" can't acquire that necessary level of knowledge by some background reading beforehand, that's not something that has ever been demonstrated by your approach or that of ARS. This is a simple enough article after all, and being based on documenting public standards and conventions it's unusually easy to reference.

Do we have any welders with time on their hands? Maybe - and if so, they'd be welcome to sort this article out. Sadly we seem to have lost Wizard191 lately, someone who'd have been ideal at this.

There does seem to be a recent consensus that the IEP experiment has failed, is recognised to have failed, and it's now time to clean up, not to leave it around any longer. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a core principle of Wikipedia that anyone can edit. If you would prefer that technical topics are owned by subject matter experts then you should try a project such as Scholarpedia. The Indian student(s) in this case seem to be studying the topic(s) in question and they seem to have more difficulty with the difficult Wikipedia format than with the technical details of their topic. I am reasonably familiar with both. I have a qualification in engineering drawing and reasonable familiarity with terms such as butt joint and fillet. Please give an example of an important detail about welding notation which you consider is beyond us and so makes work upon this article impossible. Then please cite a policy which supports your argument that the article should be deleted to prevent further work. Warden (talk) 13:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMPETENCE also applies. You and your ARS recue tag will turn up for the deletion of the very worst of articles (and DreamFocus will doubtless soon be along too), yet you never seem to apply any such WP:COMPETENCE to fixing them, just a scatter-gun smearing of random google-droppings. If you want to fix this article, be my guest. If you want to argue that bad articles should be preserved as they are, despite, then you make yourself part of the problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMPETENCE is not a policy and you do not give any reason why this particular article or topic requires more competence than the general mass of Wikipedia articles, which mostly require more work too. Your position generally seems to be a counsel of despair - that we should give up all technical topics for lack of competent editors. It's a reasonable point of view but it's not the way that Wikipedia works, as specified by its editing policy which explicitly welcomes poor starts to a topic in the optimistic expectation that they will be improved in the fullness of time. Warden (talk) 13:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If we could miraculously remove all of the copyvios, I doubt there would be much left. One thing that wouldn't be left is an encyclopedic topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is discussed in detail in encyclopedia such as the Encyclopedia of Engineering Signs and Symbols and The Welding Encyclopedia. This claim is therefore false. Warden (talk) 14:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have just removed most of the content as copy vio. See [11], [12], and [13]. This is not my area at all, so I won't comment on whether what's left should kept, deleted, or merged, although what is currently left seems to be material copied from existing Wikipedia artcles, an uncontextualized list of abbreviations, and one unreferenced factoid about the Indian Bureau of standards. However, I will say that if the ARS is serious about trying to "rescue" these IEP articles, then they should minimally find and remove the copyvio to give an accurate picture of what's left. Voceditenore (talk) 11:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The topic requires graphics and sorting out copyright for such is challenging and so it's not surprising that the IEP finds this difficult. Fortunately, I have some facility in this area and so have reworked using a US Army source which, being a Federal Govt document, is public domain. This should enable us to make reasonable progress within the timescale of AFD. The symbols are not especially difficult though - I might hand-draw some examples myself when I get a moment. Warden (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for cleaning the article, Voceditenore. WP:Revision deletion and ((Copied))s are still required. I will follow up if this article is kept. Flatscan (talk) 04:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's unfortunate that the project's editors have inserted so much copyvio, and fortunate that Voce has removed it here. But the presence of copyvio is not by itself a reason to delete an article. The copyvio project people have rescued hundreds or maybe thousands of articles by severely pruning them. Because as long as it can be shown that the topic is notable, even the shortest of articles can stay after being cleaned, and merge proposals then can and should take place at its talk page rather than here. This topic is definitely notable. How else would construction projects get done? There are dozens of these symbols at an American Welding Society page [14]. Novickas (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The references in the article and books in the Further reading section of the article establish topic notability. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 00:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The information is notable, it found in reliable sources, such as the books found and referenced in the article now. Dream Focus 05:06, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The information is useful and notable, the article is well documented with inline citations, and copyright violations are gone. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An appropriate part of a comprehensive encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 23:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Please let me know if sources arise verifying the subject's claimed achievements, and restoration can be considered. Mkativerata (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Gomelskaya[edit]

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

Promotion of a person of low independent note Off2riorob (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was actually leaning towards Keep, on the grounds that she might pass WP:ANYBIO if the Awards section was sourced. However, I don't see any significant coverage nor reliable sources in English and few, if any, in Ukranian (for the record, I don't speak Ukranian; the last half-hour has been a joyous foray into Google Translate). Unless someone with better translation software or a decent understanding of her native tongue can supply sources to prop up the article, I'm going with Delete. Yunshui (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The person seems notable, based on the awards section. As for google hits, as someone who does a lot of editing Ukrainian composers, it's no surprise for me that she hasn't recieved much attention online. However, the main editor seems to be the subject of the article and is editing it for self-promotion. In my opinion this article should be cleaned up and wikified if it is to be kept.--Bogu Slav 18:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. If sources are found for the awards section, ping my via my talk page and I'll reconsider. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 13:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clipper music[edit]

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

Minor band that had minor attention. I declined a speedy on this article because the interviews and such are a claim of significance to me. The article was highly promotional, but I cut a lot of that out. Feel free to review the article history, you won't find anything of importance. v/r - T P 20:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG, barely traceable on Google, looks as if finding any decent refs will be v.diff. Shame. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:BAND. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkativerata (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bandi Isaac[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Borderline A7, but I will err on the side of caution. Not applicable for BLPprod because his youtube channel is linked (supposedly that counts a source). No hits on gbooks or gnews, nothing on google which seems reliable, but YMMV. Yoenit (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are a lot of blogs, but there does not appear to be and reliable inderpandent sources, all my searching seems to confirm nom's conclusions. L888Y5 (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, it looks as if Yoenit is exactly right. It'll have to go. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, thats a new nickname. Yoenit (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry, slip of the mouse!Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no evidence of any notability.Vincelord (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Its true that searching about this person draws a blank. I found only one source (other than blogs)on the website -->http://www.lafindia.org/about%20us.html but don't know whether it can be termed reliable. Vivekananda De--tAlK 12:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Lavery[edit]

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

So many issues for this article. This article could not establish notability from third-party sources, the content may have violated WP:CP by plagiarizing from other websites, and there are no references. Even self-published materials, such as hundreds of episodes and scripts, are insufficient to have this article stand on its own. Previously PRODded; challenged by IP editor who could not at this time improve this article and claimed that this fictional character is "notable". Actually, the cancelled soap All My Children is notable from many sources; is this character notable, as well? ~~--Gh87 (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)~~ I vote delete as well. --Gh87 (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article has existed since 2006, although that doesn't meen that it should be kept. L888Y5 (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A very well-documented non-existent person. Can WP refer to Soap Central, I wonder? or Soaps She Knows? She's documented like a real human. I know IMDB isn't on. Guess that's a Delete but it does feel like being grandad telling off the kids for, er, being alive. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article sites correct and useful information pertaining to an historic and notable character. Deleting the article should not be in question.Casanova88 (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you prove this character's "notability", especially from the third-party sources? By the way, you have ignored instructions of WP:AFD by removing the AfD banner. It is not the same as WP:PROD --Gh87 (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize about the removal of the banner. The character of Annie has been listed in various books pertaining to AMC (and published by ABC) and also in magazines.Casanova88 (talk) 19:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline, the article is completely unreferenced and it is a plot-only description of a fictional work, unsuitable for Wikipedia. Jfgslo (talk) 07:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This character is incredibly notable and well known within and outside the soap world. Deleting the article would be a travesty and an intent to remove the information on purpose.149.4.206.16 (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major character, sufficiently sourced. The fact that the show has been cancelled has no bearing on this discussion. Please note that the television show itself serves as sourcing for fictional character articles. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 15:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Annie Lavery had a pivotal part of AMC history, and yes, the show no longer airs on television, but it is transferring online as of January 2012. Annie had a big part of her years on AMC, interacting with many of the notable characters of the series. It is well sourced, in my view. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 5:45PM 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep For this one, I'm going to argue the fundamental issue: a principal character of a famous show or any other fictional work is an appropriate subject for an article . (In the case of a serial show, this refers to a principal characters over multiple seasons, as here, not of a particular episode) The reason for using the criterion I suggest is that it makes sense. Trying to fit the GNG to individual instances of this sort is an exercise in futility. DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest redirecting the article to point to List of All My Children characters and adding a short (or long) entry to that page. This character fails the WP:GNG, but should probably still be mentioned in the list article. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with a chance of WP:SNOW. Very nice work on the article! The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

White Aethiopians[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Reads like a Wikidictionary entry. Dubious ability to evolve into an article proper. Remurmur (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definite Keep This one is really curious. I had heard of the White Ethiopian race: and the earlier AfDs mention solid literary references, too, so this article could be, and deserves to be rescued. It needs a bit of scholarship, certainly.

Here are some of the refs the earlier AfD found:

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/research_in_african_literatures/v042/42.1.dunton.html The First Ethiopians

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/tech/summary/v047/47.1pena.html Bleaching the Ethiopians

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/jwh/summary/v014/14.4smith.html and http://www.scribd.com/doc/3823705/urlsatctrescd13urlhttp3A2F2Fwww-learner-org2Fchannel2Fcourses2Fworldhistory2Fsupport2Freading-6-3, What happened to the ancient Libyans? Chasing Sources across the Sahara from Herodotus to Ibn Khaldun (this is great fun, discussing how Leo Africanus, Ptolemy and Strabo all failed to verify their sources :) - no resemblance to anyone living today, then) Richard Smith, Journal of World History, Vol 14, No 4, Dec 2003, pp 459-500

http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-0828103-180739/ An Africanist-Orientalist Discourse

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MLvivweVbsoC&pg=PA142#v=onepage&q&f=false Affairs of West Africa, Edmund Dene Morel 1902

Also possibly interesting:

Harold G Marcus, The black men who turned white: European attitudes towards Ethiopians, 1850-1900. (1968).

Arysio Santos, Atlantis: The Lost Continent Finally Found. North Atlantic Books, 2011. ISBN 978-1556439568 [15]

The current article fails to exploit this wonderful material. That's reason to write it up, not delete, however. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the title should either be "Leucaethiopes" in Greek-influenced Latin, after Pliny, or just "White Ethiopians" if EN is our language. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the title change. I don't think we should add sources to the list of references without actually using them as references however, so I hope you are going to actually use them in the article. Dougweller (talk) 07:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, of course you're right. We shouldn't, but it was getting late at night; and I had noticed that this AfD was partly caused by the lack of incorporation of the sources that the previous AfD had discovered, so I didn't want to lose them. Of course, they are now a stimulus to me, and I hope to those far more knowledgeable than me, to do something with them. But perhaps I'll have a simple go at it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the sensible reasons given by Chiswick Chap . Warden (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments in the first AfD. The nominator has made no attempt to explain why they should no longer apply. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rescue in progress - OK, I have spent some time drafting both ancient (classical) and mediaeval sources in the article itself - not finished yet. I am sure a scholar could do much better, but perhaps it will help a little. Could we put up a 'Rescue' tag perhaps? (How?) Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see any problem with this article now. I don't see a need for a rescue tag either. There is no way that anyone will delete the article now. I'll ask the nominator to withdraw the nomination. Dougweller (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm fine with the article now. I don't know how to withdraw a nomination, but any admin is free to close the discussion.--Remurmur (talk) 00:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced now, thanks to the work of Chiswick Chap. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 04:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

San Francisco Cage Wars[edit]

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

Non-notable regional mixed martial arts promotion. Does not pass WP:GNG. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article about a minor regional MMA organization with no indication of notability. Article also has no independent sources. Papaursa (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly sourced article about a very minor MMA promotion. Astudent0 (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seems to be a clear consensus. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 13:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of coats of arms of the United Kingdom and dependencies[edit]

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

Wikipedia:NOTGALLERY —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTGALLERY refers to articles "with no text". This article contains text and, if we should want more, this is best done by further editing in accordance with our editing policy, not by deletion. The topic has a clear and coherent theme and so is quite proper. Warden (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not all useful things on Wikipedia should be deleted, and not all galleries are bad. For example, Gallery of sovereign-state flags is good. ~~It is even touted at Wikipedia:Gallery as an example of a good gallery (although that did not keep nominator for also nominating that gallery for deletion).~~ That gallery is indeed extremely useful as a navigational aid. Assisting navigation is one of the stated purposes of lists, and galleries can also serve that purpose, in particular for items whose primary representation is visual. As it is, for many people the primary representation of the topic of this gallery is also visual, and it serves a navigational purpose. --Lambiam 23:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coats of arms listed here each have their own article. This is a WP:LIST of related articles, for browsing, that includes obvious visual cues. Deletion of this list would be a misapplication of WP:NOTGALLERY. (And, if not, WP:NOTGALLERY would have to be rewritten to allow such obviously encyclopedic lists.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - per just about all the rest of this shotgunned set of AfD nominations. Somebody fetch the WP:TROUT, please. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep For the same reasons that have been given for all of these articles the nominator has AFD'd with the same incorrect rationale. WP:NOTGALLERY is not violated and the subject matter is notable. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 08:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 5 people not in favor of deletion, 0 people in favor, Clear Consensus. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 14:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of coats of arms of dependent territories[edit]

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

Wikipedia:NOTGALLERY —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTGALLERY refers to articles "with no text". This article contains text and, if we should want more, this is best done by further editing in accordance with our editing policy, not by deletion. The topic has a clear and coherent theme and so is quite proper. Warden (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not all useful things on Wikipedia should be deleted, and not all galleries are bad. For example, Gallery of sovereign-state flags is good. ~~It is even touted at Wikipedia:Gallery as an example of a good gallery (although that did not keep nominator for also nominating that gallery for deletion).~~ That gallery is indeed extremely useful as a navigational aid. Assisting navigation is one of the stated purposes of lists, and galleries can also serve that purpose, in particular for items whose primary representation is visual. As it is, for many people the primary representation of the topic of this gallery is also visual, and it serves a navigational purpose. --Lambiam 23:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No legitimate basis for deletion given. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - very encyclopediatic subject; notable; likely an invalid and certainly WP:ALLCAPS-only 'rationaile' as part of a shotgun WP:IDONTLIKEIT-smelling AfD campaign. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep For the same reasons that have been given for all of these articles the nominator has AFD'd with the same incorrect rationale. WP:NOTGALLERY is not violated and the subject matter is notable. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 08:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC) (I'm just copying and pasting my !vote now but under the circumstances I think it's reasonable)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Galleries are discouraged on Wikipedia by WP:Galleries and WP:NOTGALLERY. That is not to say that we don’t want to have access to the files, but that the appropriate place for them is on Commons. While some galleries are possible search targets, such as Gallery of banknotes, consensus here is that this title is unlikely so deletion is the appropriate course. If anyone wishes to go to Commons and organise flag images by year date, that is a matter for discussion on Commons, not here. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of country coats of arms in 1863[edit]

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

Wikipedia:NOTGALLERY, terribly obscure —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not all useful things on Wikipedia should be deleted, and not all galleries are bad. For example, Gallery of sovereign-state flags is good. ~~It is even touted at Wikipedia:Gallery as an example of a good gallery (although that did not keep nominator for also nominating that gallery for deletion).~~ That gallery is indeed extremely useful as a navigational aid. Assisting navigation is one of the stated purposes of lists, and galleries can also serve that purpose, in particular for items whose primary representation is visual. As it is, for many people the primary representation of the topic of this gallery is also visual, and it serves a navigational purpose. --Lambiam 23:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of all the galleries proposed for deletion by the user this is the only one that I agree should be deleted. There is no indication of 1863, of all years, should have this list. What makes that year more notable than 1990, 1992, 1815, 1648 etc. Having a gallery for country coat of arms for each country of every single years does seem like overkill. A gallery of current countries seems appropriate, while the remaining country coat of arms for countries that no longer exist can be included on their respective country pages. Ravendrop 23:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ravendrop. Countries tend not to change their coats of arms very often. Hence, if someone wanted to know what a country's coat of arms looked like in a given year, it would be a better idea to refer them to the article on the country's coat of arms which should describe how that emblem has changed throughout history -- rather than having a gallery for every single year. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that "by year" is an interesting way of curating this content. Sure, for a particular country it makes sense to look at that country's coat of arms article, and see how it changed throughout history. But seeing historical snapshots that cover multiple countries is also a relevant exercise in comparisons. TheGrappler (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC) [FWIW this is more obvious with flags. I have seen various (dead-wood) sources that let you see what the flags of the world all looked like at particular snapshots in history, but I can't see why that endeavour should be worthwhile but this one not. TheGrappler (talk) 11:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)][reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Arbitrary choice of year. This compilation is original research. You could include these images in individual historic articles about that period. Dzlife (talk) 18:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question/proposal/opinion - Is it feasible to incorporate the coats of arms into List of sovereign states in 1863 (which already has the correct flags for each nation at that time)? Or scrap it in favour of Timeline of national coats of arms (following the excellent example of Timeline of national flags)?
This article is obviously not in breach of WP:NOTGALLERY, nor are nation state's coats of arms non-notable. But I certainly agree with Ravendrop that a specific article of this type for every single year is overkill. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 19:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a Timeline of national coats of arms (though do they change that often?), but I'm not sure of their addition to the list of states. States are most often identified by their flags, and in fact most coat of arms, most people would have no idea what state they belong to. I'd also be worried about possible visual clutter on that page. I still think the best option is simply to include these on (especially those for states that don't exist anymore) on their respective pages. Ravendrop 19:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, especially as it relates to visual clutter - the arms would need to be displayed in a higher resolution and larger size than flags to be identifiable. It seems some coats of arms change very frequently according to politics and some are unchanged for centuries. I think I'd support keeping this page if there was a long series of articles relating to politics and national governance in 1863 but as things stand it seems an arbitrary choice of year. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 09:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apart from NOTGALLERY, there's no point in selecting a single arbitrary year as the basis of the presentation. Sandstein 13:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTGALLERY violation is rather blatant. Not really appropriate for an encyclopedia either. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - WP:NOTGALLERY notwithstanding, this is an encyclopediatic topic. Perhaps it should be moved to National coats of arms of the mid 19th century, but (given the batch of other articles nominated for deletion by this nominator at the same time) this smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and something's being "obscure" is not at all a reason for deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (WP:NAC). There seems to a clear consensus to keep this article. Only one vote was in favor of the deletion regarding WP:GNG, but the article seems to easily pass it. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 13:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of country coats of arms[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia:NOTGALLERY —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTGALLERY refers to articles "with no text". This article contains text and, if we should want more, this is best done by further editing in accordance with our editing policy, not by deletion. The topic has a clear and coherent theme and so is quite proper. Warden (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not all useful things on Wikipedia should be deleted, and not all galleries are bad. For example, Gallery of sovereign-state flags is good. ~~It is even touted at Wikipedia:Gallery as an example of a good gallery (although that did not keep nominator for also nominating that gallery for deletion).~~ That gallery is indeed extremely useful as a navigational aid. Assisting navigation is one of the stated purposes of lists, and galleries can also serve that purpose, in particular for items whose primary representation is visual. As it is, for many people the primary representation of the topic of this gallery is also visual, and it serves a navigational purpose. --Lambiam 23:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Warden. No legitimate basis for deletion given. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Allcaps invalid nom, subject notable, every encyclopedia will have them, trout, etc. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Most of the entries in the list even have an article about them. Gathering these closely-related articles into a list for browsing is one of the many things we do as part of building an encyclopedia. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - Nomination rationale is incorrect as demonstrated and the subject matter clearly meets WP:GNG as there are articles for every single coat of arms. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 07:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Again a clear consensus, however I did a move, if someone disagree then please feel free to correct it (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 13:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of dependent territory flags[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia:NOTGALLERY —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not all useful things on Wikipedia should be deleted, and not all galleries are bad. For example, Gallery of sovereign-state flags is good. ~~It is even touted at Wikipedia:Gallery as an example of a good gallery (although that did not keep nominator for also nominating that gallery for deletion).~~ That gallery is indeed extremely useful as a navigational aid. Assisting navigation is one of the stated purposes of lists, and galleries can also serve that purpose, in particular for items whose primary representation is visual. As it is, for many people the primary representation of the topic of this gallery is also visual, and it serves a navigational purpose. --Lambiam 23:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No legitimate basis of deletion given. This is obviously a list in the sense of WP:LIST, not a mere gallery in the sense of WP:NOTGALLERY. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 2 prev cmmts. Outback the koala (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - invalid WP:ALLCAPS-only rationiale, encyclopediatic and notable subect. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep For the same reasons that have been given for all of these articles the nominator has AFD'd with the same incorrect rationale. WP:NOTGALLERY is not violated and the subject matter is notable - flags of a country failing general notability guidelines? Eh? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 09:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is encyclopaedic and independently verifible. It would be perverse to list the flags and now show them. I don't know what Stuartyeates is saying - using wikipedia shorthand is not useful to anyone but a small elite, and should be avoided accordingly. This article is exactly what wikipedia should be about.Rhyddfrydol (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus, the article seems to be enough "encyclopediatic". (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 14:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of French coats of arms[edit]

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

Wikipedia:NOTGALLERY —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTGALLERY refers to articles "with no text". This article contains text and, if we should want more, this is best done by further editing in accordance with our editing policy, not by deletion. The topic has a clear and coherent theme and so is quite proper. Warden (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not all useful things on Wikipedia should be deleted, and not all galleries are bad. For example, Gallery of sovereign-state flags is good. ~~It is even touted at Wikipedia:Gallery as an example of a good gallery (although that did not keep nominator for also nominating that gallery for deletion).~~ That gallery is indeed extremely useful as a navigational aid. Assisting navigation is one of the stated purposes of lists, and galleries can also serve that purpose, in particular for items whose primary representation is visual. As it is, for many people the primary representation of the topic of this gallery is also visual, and it serves a navigational purpose. --Lambiam 23:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NOTGALLERY does not fit. User:Lambiam's reasons for keep are relevant.Buster Seven Talk 05:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Someone please find some WP:TROUT. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - List, not a gallery. WP:ALLCAPS-only nom. Very encyclopediatic and notable subject. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Easily passes WP:GNG. This is precisely the sort of list one would expect to find in a print encyclopedia, were it to have a detailed discussion of French heraldry. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to meet WP:NOTGALLERY or merge into an article about French coats of arms with more text. Dzlife (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Forecast: heavy WP:SNOW. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of named graphs[edit]

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

Wikipedia:NOTGALLERY —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTGALLERY refers to articles "with no text". This article contains text and, if we should want more, this is best done by further editing in accordance with our editing policy, not by deletion. The topic has a clear and coherent theme and so is quite proper. Warden (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is a visual index of articles. As each image has an associated article, it is clearly not a "Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles" and WP:NOTGALLERY obviously does not apply. Gandalf61 (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ on the grounds that there does exist at least one book which contains a list of interesting curves (no sniggering at the back, naughty boys), but unfortunately I haven't actually seen the book I'm thinking of for over 30 years and can't remember what it's called. No way can it be a unique compendium - it's just a matter of finding them.

I'm also looking at Murray Spiegel's Mathematical Handbook which contains a small compendium of "special plane curves" - oh, and let's not forget Abramowitz and Stegun. So if we wanted to cite the fact that there are lists out there containing graphs / curves / whatever, they're out there.

Sorry, the above relates to coordinate geometry, not graph theory, it may be treated as completely irrelevant. Apologies. --Matt Westwood 21:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I have found this article very useful for my work. If I find a symmetry structure related to a graph, I use it to check "Does the graph have a name?" If it does, I can google for more information about it. It's not just a gallery, it's a lookup table: find your graph, and discover what it's called. I have probably consulted this article more times than any other single article in Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Word of warning: having recently been party to the AfD on the List of Important Books of Mathematics, I learned that "because it's useful" is not a good argument to use for keeping anything (and in fact it can weaken a "keep" argument as it indicates bias, and the deletionist lawyers are apt to invoke WP:USEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT. A shame, but there you are - forewarned is forearmed. --Matt Westwood 21:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not all useful things on Wikipedia should be deleted, and not all galleries are bad. For example, Gallery of sovereign-state flags is good. ~~It is even touted at Wikipedia:Gallery as an example of a good gallery.~~ This gallery is indeed extremely useful as a navigational aid. Assisting navigation is one of the stated purposes of lists, and galleries can also serve that purpose, in particular for items whose primary representation is visual. As it is, for many people the primary representation of graph-theoretical graphs is visual, and Gallery of named graphs serves a navigational purpose. --Lambiam 22:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep: WP:Gallery is not applicable here. The article organizes the graphs by type and there is explanatory material included. This is more of a list with illustrations than a gallery.--RDBury (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (probably WP:SNOW). CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Such galleries of math objects allow visual identifications and helps people to find what they are looking for without knowing the time beforehand. Also such tables are not uncommon in reference works.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:37, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clear keep. Unquestionably, this list is useful as a source for browsing articles. It goes far beyond beyond being a mere gallery with no text. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC) Metacomment: What is it with the fascistic interpretation of the WP:RULES that seems to dominate deletion discussions these days? First it was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in mathematics and now this? There should be some guideline that discourages this kind of boneheadedness: "if your deletion rationale of a group of articles is less than two sentences long, consider that maybe you haven't really thought the thing through enough." Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are people who are philosophically opposed to the concept of a list (or just hate mathematics and the sciences), and are doing everything within the minutely-studied rules to get rid of them. Every statement that is made in favour of a keep is counteracted by an interpretation of a rule which is a direct counter-attack against that keep statement. Unfortunately the majority of people who are in favour of keeping stuff seem to be those who are more interested in adding material - which means they tend to spend more time on contributing to content than studying the rules for loopholes.

The worst offence against decency that I've seen is to say "I see you've quoted a source, but that source can not be included because I haven't seen it or read it, so how do I know I can believe you when you say it exists? Delete!"

Rant over. I'd be interested to see whether any of the abolitionists recognise themselves. --Matt Westwood 12:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bite I nominated List of important publications in biology for deletion and someone else came along and (probably) said, "Well, if that merits deletion, seems like List of important publications in mathematics should, too" and nominated it. Similarly, I nominated 200_Greatest_Israelis and thought, "If that's being deleted, seems like a spate of similar articles should be, too." The actual deletion requests read something like "See this discussion" or "Look at WP:POLICY", but those discussions and policies/guidelines/etc. took a long time to make themselves. The actual rationale may be two lines long, but they appeal to much more substantial discussions. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our one and only purpose here is to build an encyclopedia. The policies are meant to help us in that sole objective. Wielding them like a blunt instrument in this way is counterproductive to that aim. Yes, we have a "policy" that Wikipedia is not an image repository and there are very good reasons for that. But a list such as this that contains images is also helpful in organizing the information for browsing, and should clearly be retained. Mindlessly applying the WP:RULES is never what we've been about. Editors participating in absolutest rhetoric like this are remanded to revisit the WP:PILLARS and meditate on their meaning as a whole. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC) Also, as an afterthought, I find the claim highly dubious that the deletion discussion of List of important publications in biology somehow sets a precedent for this sort of thing. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Strong keep per Gandalf61. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Gandalf61 and RDBury. 202.124.74.212 (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The proposer gives no argument for deletion except a link to a policy page! This is not simply a "gallery"; this is a reference work useful to mathematicians both for navigation among Wikipedia articles and for browsing, and probably for other purposes as well. The cited policy repeatedly refers to "mere collections of" this or that. The word "mere" means "only". If it's only a collection of whatever, then the policy applies. That's not what this is. It almost looks as if the proposer saw the words "gallery of" in the title and slapped this AfD together without looking further. That would explain why the AfD proposal consists only of a link to that cited policy. There's a comedy movie titled How to Murder Your Wife. There's a Wikipedia article about it. The proposer may next propose that for a deletion, citing the policy that "Wikipedia is not a how-to". Michael Hardy (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Again a piece of clear consensus, just one editor is favor of deletion, however that was not much impressing. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 14:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of national flags[edit]

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

Wikipedia:NOTGALLERY —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTGALLERY refers to articles "with no text". This article contains text and has more of a temporal focus than a graphical one - the nominator's deletion spree seems to have gone off track. The topic has a clear and coherent theme and so is quite proper and should be developed further in accordance with our editing policy. Warden (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. This article is quite obviously not a gallery, and also not a mere collection of links or media files, so it is mysterious why nominator invokes WP:NOTGALLERY, and this nomination should be treated as lacking a rationale for deletion. --Lambiam 23:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly not relevant to NOTGALLERY - I do, however, wish that somebody had made this more navigable! TheGrappler (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How, exactly, is this only a gallery? It's a timeline that happens to include visual information. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - the deletion rationaile is completely invalid, and even if this were a gallery this is exactly the kind of page you'd be likely to find in any encyclopedia. Do we want to give the WP:NABOBS more reason to laugh at Wikipedia? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It doesn't call itself a gallery, plus I find this page incredibly useful to check in one location for changes to flags. SimonX (talk)

Delete fails WP:GNG. Completely unreferenced. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SOFIXIT. And I wouldn't be surprised to find plenty of references on the individual flags' pages, which are linked to from the article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nomination is incorrect (assuming WP:NOTGALLERY:4 is being referred to) - text and tables provide the context necessary. Regarding WP:GNG - these are national flags, surely it's common sense to accept notability?
(Side note: I have to say that this article is potentially very useful and it looks really funky ^_^ ) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 06:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 4 people in oppose of deletion, 2 in favor, however supports are not much impressing. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 14:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flags of country subdivisions[edit]

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

Wikipedia:NOTGALLERY —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not all useful things on Wikipedia should be deleted, and not all galleries are bad. For example, Gallery of sovereign-state flags is good. ~~It is even touted at Wikipedia:Gallery as an example of a good gallery (although that did not keep nominator for also nominating that gallery for deletion).~~ That gallery is indeed extremely useful as a navigational aid. Assisting navigation is one of the stated purposes of lists, and galleries can also serve that purpose, in particular for items whose primary representation is visual. As it is, for many people the primary representation of the topic of this gallery is also visual, and it serves a navigational purpose. --Lambiam 23:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What a ridiculous nomination. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and a ((trout)) for the nominator, who apparently decided to shotgun AfD with a bunch of nominations, citing a single policy, the same for each, that doesn't even apply to most of them, without any other justification. Frankly it smells very much of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Completely unreferenced. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep For the same reasons that have been given for all of these articles the nominator has AFD'd with the same incorrect rationale. WP:NOTGALLERY is not violated and the subject matter is notable. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 09:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC) (I'm just copying and pasting my !vote now but under the circumstances I think it's reasonable)[reply]

Further comment - How do national flags fail WP:GNG? As for referencing, one can simply click on the individual articles (e.g. List of Polish flags) and find refs there. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 09:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of references. GoodDay (talk) 05:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of references is not grounds for deletion. Most lists lack references. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not a snowball's chance of this being deleted. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery of sovereign-state flags[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia:NOTGALLERY. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nominator has nominated this before and the result was a resounding Keep. Per WP:DEL, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome.". The claim that this is contrary to Wikipedia:NOTGALLERY is false because the images here have accompanying text which provide a coherent theme and explanation of them. If we should feel the need for more text then this will be done by further editing not by deletion. Presenting the flags of all nations in this way is standard material for an encyclopedia and it is vexatiously false to suggest otherwise. Warden (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I pointed out in the last AFD, this kind of page does exist in the dead tree/old school encyclopedias. This is stuff that is still being used in those. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is getting ridiculous, and I find these repeated flurries of thoughtless nominations quite disruptive. I'm not sure nominator will agree, but I firmly believe that the consensus is that not all useful things on Wikipedia should be deleted. Also, not all galleries are bad. And in fact, Gallery of sovereign-state flags is good. ~~It is even touted at Wikipedia:Gallery as an example of a good gallery.~~ This gallery is indeed extremely useful as a navigational aid. Assisting navigation is one of the stated purposes of lists, and galleries can also serve that purpose, in particular for items whose primary representation is visual. As it is, for most people the primary representation of flags is visual, and Gallery of sovereign-state flags serves an obvious navigational purpose. --Lambiam 23:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not the spirit of WP:NOTGALLERY, and every print encyclopedia I have ever seen has such a table of flags. To delete this would violate common sense. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A gallery such as this is of encyclopaedic value. A misinterpretation of the guidelines. Nightw 15:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No valid reason given for deletion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was My mistake, snow keep. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

L'Ordine Nuovo[edit]

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

The main source for this article seems to be from a book co-written by one of the founders of the paper [16]. There are brief mentions on news articles but the Nuovo rates a brief mention only such as this [17] on articles about Antonio Gramsci the founder. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The main source for the article is Bellamy's introduction to Antonio Gramsci: pre-prison writings (Cambridge University Press, 1994). Bellamy was born in 1957, thirty years after the paper's founding, and was hardly a founder himself. The newspaper is notable because of role it played in Italian politics during the rise of fascism and also for the notablity of its writers. Google books shows thousands of hits. Scholar shows almost 1,400. There certainly are sufficient on-line sources to establish notability which is impressive for a newspaper that stopped publishing in 1921. TFD (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will withdraw the nomination if you explain why Gramsi is one of the authors credited on the main source? "Antonio Gramsci: pre-prison writings By Antonio Gramsci, Richard Paul Bellamy, Virginia Cox" or did I look at the wrong book? The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TFD. This nomination is so groundless that it's really quite baffling. Writegeist (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This one doesn't make any sense to me. The sources are sound and notable and while it's not a subject that's exactly in the spotlight, it is encyclopedic. Trusilver 19:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Also SK#1 The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tuxedo (software)[edit]

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

I wrote a detailed reason for deletion, but it was rejected (and deleted) by twinkle because I linked to eHow, which is blacklisted... Great. Here's a much shorter version.

No notability established by reliable sources. There are only two refs provided, one of which makes no mention of the software, and the other is a primary source written by the software architects.

I did a search, and was unable to turn up any reliable secondary sources. I found one article on eHow, which itself is not a reputable source, but which makes a claim of notability. The quote is: "The Oracle Tuxedo has acquired 80 percent of the market share. Customers including FedEx, Avis Budget Group, JPMorgan Chase, Wachovia, University of Arizona and University of Wisconsin"

I can find no backing for that statement elsewhere. I propose this article be merged with BEA Systems or Oracle, and Tuxedo_(software) become a redirect. However, I don't believe there is any salvageable content, so that will (and should) amount to deletion. — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being a long way from home I'll defer digging out detailed evidence of notability, but Tuxedo is a well-known longstanding piece of integration software and a surprise nomination. One can find companies like RedHat specifically seeking to buy/build to provide rival tools: [18], for example. AllyD (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of coverage in independent reliable sources can be found via these searches. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it has some historic value, alas before the days of the web so perhaps not much coverage is online. I did turn up some papers in academic journals for example, so it was notable for its time. Definitely needs citations and other work. W Nowicki (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another search that turns up plenty of results with a bit more time-depth is this, giving for example "Tuxedo is a vintage TP [transaction-processing] monitor" (from 1997). But while its finest days may be behind it, it is a reference point: the O'Reilly book on Enterprise JavaBeans (2001, ISBN 0596002262) opens its discussion on transaction processing in relation to both CICS and Tuxedo. AllyD (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A major peice of middleware from way back when. Coverage exists in a lot of books. For example, there's quite a lot in this book. -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A good number of sources have been provided, which appears sufficient to establish notability. The article is still in dire need of inline sourcing, but it should be worked on rather than deleted. Any admin, please feel free to close this as a speedy keep, per A1. Thanks. — Jess· Δ ♥ 18:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to Admin - The above !vote is actually a witdrawal of the nomination by the nominator. -- Whpq (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As astonishing as it is to see DGG !voting to delete (I just finished my drink), there is no consensus here and the discussion suggests that more development is needed to determine the status of the article. This AFD should be taken into account in future nominations, but does not prejudice re-nomination at any time. causa sui (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rally Squirrel[edit]

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

Squirrels ran onto the field in consecutive games at a baseball field, and looking for a little light news/sports coverage, it was covered along with the games. However, there is nothing to indicate this is at all notable beyond the immediate humor that it provided. The squirrels have not been adopted as a mascot or anything of the like and it appears to have been a natural occurrence (e.g. not scripted) so, for the moment, this appears to have the same relevance and notability as a fan running onto the field. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete articles like this one lessen my faith in Wikipedia. This article, which is about arcane trivia of no lasting value and covered as a pure anecdote to the actually notable events of the games themselves, is 1/3rd longer than the article on Nobel peace prize winner and human rights activist Tawakel Karman.--TM 17:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Funny and basically harmless, but sadly, probably not notable enough for an article. Perhaps it might merit a mention on the 2011 National League Division Series article instead? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no prejudice towards userfication either, this could certainly gain a lasting effect as the postseason wears on. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merge or Userify for now. I am with Mark on both those options. For the moment, it is pretty insignificant on its own; once the media stories stop, all this is is a Cardinals fandom meme. If the meme shows some longevity, I think then it would be notable enough to have its own article. --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Wknight94 ^talk 18:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userify or Merge since I foresee this potentially going beyond the Rally Monkey if the Cardinals win against the Phillies. The article's heavily sourced and I don't want editors to spend hours creating the article again. Hours to create, one minute to destroy at AFD. I've notified the article's author and main contributor since you decided it'd be best not to. The claim that it has the same notability as a fan running on the field is misleading. There's 171 news articles from reliable sources on google news, many of which are dedicated articles to the squirrel and not just some passing mention as you insist. Fox News St. Louis also covered his appearance as well as a song dedicated to the squirrel. That's FAR from being the same as a fan running onto the field. I still think this should be userified for now, but don't play this down with completely disproportional comparisons. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 18:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further writeup from the New York Times Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 19:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 19:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed this wasn't in the news, but as someone else above said, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. What indication is there that is is going to be notable beyond next week? By comparison, not every meme on the Internet that gains in popularity has its own article. This is merely a cutesy occurrence in a baseball game, a "flavor of the week". Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

St. Louis just completed their colossal upset of Philadelphia. Another squirrel caused problems on the field prior to Game 5 in Philly. If this article is deleted, it must be userfied and not completely destroyed considering the length of the article and the reliable sources cited because the squirrel's popularity and news coverage will increase, much like the rally monkey if not even moreso. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 03:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still think this can be covered in the article on the series.... the squirrel has no lasting notability. Spanneraol (talk) 03:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with a Merge as well, except people below are arguing that everything should be deleted. Many players and managers are very superstitious, they even celebrated with a stuffed animal squirrel after Game 5 [19]. They put stock in the rally squirrel, so it at least deserves one paragraph mention on the NLDS article.Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 18:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone added a one-line mention to Busch Stadium, which I copyedited. At this point (no speculation about greater future notability), any other article should IMO only be a one-line mention at best as well. Anyone that feels inclined should do this outside of this AfD, as I can only imagine piecemeal merging to multiple articles as opposed to moving the content en masse to a single article.—Bagumba (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Lots of good sources. Don't be elitist. CallawayRox (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith and not make unfounded accusations against other editors. Trusilver 19:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as noted above, Wikipedia is not the newspaper. I don't see any problem with userfying the article for the possibility of future notability, as Vodello noted above. Trusilver 19:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Weak Keep. I keep reading this article and the associated references and I guess I DO see that there is some kind of bizarre phenomenon forming over this thing that has an acceptable level of notability. I also accept that my bias against a stadium full of half-wits chanting "Let's go, squirrel!" isn't an acceptable reason to delete it either. Trusilver 16:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me?!? "a stadium full of half-wits"? I believe that remark is totally uncalled for and insulting to St. Louis Cardinals fans. You owe those of us in Cardinal Nation an apology IMHO.Sector001 (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was actually referring to events of September 2007 at Yankee Stadium. As a Red Sox fan, I'd normally be willing to accept the "half-wits" description in this case -- except that the New York Times, a reliable source, indicated that the event set off a heated discussion in the crowd over the relative merits of the 13-Century Poetic Edda vs. Snorri Sturluson's later Prose Edda, with some supporting Rudolf Simek's view that the squirrel probably only represented an embellishing detail to the mythological picture of the world-ash in Grímnismál, while others (probably Mets fans, so what can you expect) refuting this with an assertion that squirrel's ceaseless gnawing represents a continual destruction and re-growth cycle, symbolizing ever-changing existence. Hardly the work of half-wits, although I understand a couple of drunken fistfights over the matter broke out in the stands. Herostratus (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lol, thanks for placing this in proper context, and helping us see that this is about so much more than a squirrel, or St. Louis, or baseball.... First Light (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userify Too early to tell if this has any lasting WP:EFFECT. The mention of other squirrels in baseball games might be WP:MASKing the lack of notability here, morphing the article into a WP:COATRACK of the baseball squirrel universe. Changing the article to cover all baseball squirrels would be a non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations per WP:NOTDIRECTORY #7 unless multiple sources provide significant coverage on the categorization as a whole and not just a passing mention. If a standalone article is not suitable, notable information should still be WP:PRESERVEd, e.g. merge with 2011 National League Division Series, or 2011 St. Louis Cardinals season if it remains a news item in a subsequent series. Also consider contributing to Wikinews when WP:NOTNEWSPAPER applies.—Bagumba (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant content to 2011 National League Division Series as an amusing story... but has no lasting otability on it's own. Spanneraol (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, do not merge. None of this is relevant to the 2011 NLDS, which involves baseball, not rodents. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of the commentary of the series so a brief mention on the 2011 NLDS article makes sense. Spanneraol (talk) 03:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see squirrels running on the field as being important enough to mention. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to change my vote to Userfy. It is too soon to say this is notable, and I am granting now that there is a chance it could become notable in the future, though I believe that as of now it is not. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A water-cooler story which fails WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Edison (talk) 22:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to satisfy a lot of the guidelines for WP:EVENT. Depth of coverage, diversity of sources, event didn't occur once, but three games in a row. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 18:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not Voting' as I don't have an account, but it is simply too soon to tell whether this will be notable. I think there's a distinct possibility, but sports fan traditions take some time to coalesce. It makes no sense to argue about whether the rally squirrel IS or IS NOT notable. No sense at all. 71.236.242.147 (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia, where this happens all the time. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 18:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hence me not having an account. This is a combination of an Occupy Wikipedia Democracy Hut and a middle school student council meeting.71.236.242.147 (talk) 07:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This is going to be like the Rally Monkey in Anaheim, I can tell you right now the Rally Squirrel is a good luck charm for the Cardinals and it happening twice warrants something.--Jack Cox (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not speculate on future notability until it actually happens.—Bagumba (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can the rally squirrel get like the Rally Monkey? It's a wild squirrel. I think I read they are trying to humanely remove the squirrel, not make it a recurring theme. Wknight94 ^talk 22:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- or at the very least merge into the St. Louis Cardinals Wiki in some form. I guess I'm just an "inclusionist" by nature. Like someone said above, "don't be elitist". For better or worse many times when "Joe Sixpack" hears about something on the news he's likely to do a Wikipedia search for it, Rally Squirrel included. Thats been my experience anyway. I fail to see the harm in keeping this article. There are tens of thousands of others that could be considered of far less value, depending on your viewpoint I guess. Sector001 (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM or WP:USEFUL are not valid arguments for inclusion. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 22:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not encyclopedic. The nearest rules are NOT NEWS and NOT TABLOID--the sort of material which is written about because readers find it amusing, the press ore broadcast or online material that is best termed "filler". None of this is ever encyclopedic content unless the story becomes a classic, in which case the article, like an article on an internet meme, should be describing the spread of the meme, not the underlying triviality. It's hard to codify this into written rules, so we have to rely upon the judgment of people who know the difference between an encyclopedia and chatter. My wording of it, is the notability has to be about notability for something. This is one of the shortcomings of blind use of the GNG--it should rather be interpreted as the screen for what things that might be notable really are, rather than an overarching rule making any imaginable topic notable. DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that argument also delete most of the articles listed under WP:ODD, including several Wikipedia:Featured articles? For example, Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office? William Windsor (goat)? Exploding whale? Are these "an encyclopedia" or "chatter"? --GRuban (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those all look like "official" and/or unique animals and titles. This squirrel was a total accident and has probably already been trapped and released into nearby woods. It's not some official mascot like the Rally Monkey. As someone said above, it's more like someone running out on to the field. Wknight94 ^talk 14:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG, squirrels randomly entering a ball game is by pure chance and not intentional, which in turn isn't encyclopedic. Textbook case of WP:NOT#NEWS Secret ^account 18:14, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and wait and see what happens in the World Series, as the rally squirrel is getting national attention. I agree the information should be kept in some form now, (before it was some silly mime that met WP:NOT#NEWS, but not anymore) but I don't know if it's a merge or a standalone article. I agree fully with Cbl62 here. Secret ^account 05:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per NOT NEWS.Orsoni (talk) 12:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems to be a classic WP:ODD story. Articles like this one meet all our sourcing standards, yet keep Wikipedia quirky. We're supposed to be the sum of the world's knowledge, and, guess what - the world isn't always a serious place. --GRuban (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Numerous reliable sources in the article qualify the topic's notability. Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 06:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not sure about this one. Full disclosure: I wrote the article. I'll leave its disposition to my esteemed colleagues, but a couple of points:
- The story is still unfolding. Cardinal Glennon Children's Hospital is now using Rally Squirrel as a fundraising mascot, and the squirrel is slated to appear at the team rally tomorrow, and I've just added this info to the article. It looks like this is pretty big in St. Louis, which I'll grant may say more about the lack of anything worthwhile to talk about in St. Louis than any inherent notability of this rodent. But given that the story is still in play, it might be a good idea to relist the article rather than closing it right away.
- It is sad that this article is longer than Tawakel Karman's (well, it was; it's not anymore) but what do you want me to do? People like to write and read about animals, I guess. We have scores of articles on individual animals. Twiggy the Water-Skiing Squirrel is the only other squirrel, but we have a racoon with a thyroid problem, a koala bear, a manatee, a meerkat; Category:Individual mammals alone has 21 (!) subcategories including five rabbits, nine pigs, three fish, three deer, and 53 elephants. Granted, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument, but it's only not a good argument if the rejoinder is "Well, those other articles arguably shouldn't exist either". You want to make that argument about these scores (hundreds, if you include horses) of articles? Maybe. I'm not sure about that. It would be a big move to delete all or most of these articles, some or even many of which seem to have only a handful of refs or are otherwise no more notable than Rally Squirrel. Herostratus (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As "The story is still unfolding", I would have preferred to wait for it to fully "fold" before creating a standalone article. Suitable articles to have added this to would have been 2011 St. Louis Cardinals season or 2011 National League Division Series, including it later in the general St. Louis Cardinals article if it spanned multiple season, with the final option to WP:SPINOUT it it ever acquired standalone notability. The subject is most notable in relation to the Cardinals or the playoffs, not if this article remains an orphan by oversight or by consensus in other articles to not include.—Bagumba (talk) 20:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose. WP:SPINOUT is one way for an article to come into existence. Is it the only legitimate way? I don't know, but if it is there are a lot articles in trouble, I would guess. Herostratus (talk) 04:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that spinout is the only way for an article to come into being. But when a subject clearly emerges from an existing article then the question does become not only is something notable enough to be mentioned, but when is it notable separate from whatever it's spawning from. See again Kirk Gibson's 1988 World Series home run. If that happened in a Wikipedia world you couldn't say the day after that it was an event notable enough to warrant it's own article separate from Kirk Gibson or 1988 World Series. The only piece of "sudden" lore in baseball I'm aware of that got it's own article while the story was still being written was Armando Galarraga's near-perfect game. And that (a) somewhat spawned out of our habit of making articles for perfect games and (b) was commented on by a US governor and the president, it clearly had developed further. Staxringold _talk^contribs 06:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess. The article is already sourced to the New York Times, Washington Post, Toronto Sun, and the St. Louis and Pittsburgh and Seattle and Detroit papers and so forth. I'm not clear what I'm suppose to wait for here... notices in Isvestia or the People's Daily, maybe? The Lancet or Science or Foreign Affairs, I guess. As to getting notice from the President of the United States, that's a pretty high barrier for a squirrel. He's just a little squirrel, he's not Ratatoskr. These are all pretty high barriers for any article, I think. I've written tons of articles on subjects that the President hasn't weighed in on. Well, you have pretty high standards, which is OK. Herostratus (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm waiting to see if this is just a news spike or it has notablity. WP:N notes " Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage." Also see WP:RECENT.—Bagumba (talk) 11:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not how much "critical analysis" we're going to see: it is a squirrel. There's already a tie-in to Norse mythology which I think most baseball events don't have. Here is an economic-impact analysis, although granted only peripherally about the Rally Squirrel per se. If we're waiting for articles like "Rally Squirrel: Another Harbinger of the Decline of Western Civilization?" or "Rally Squirrel and the Inner Self: A Critical Response" or something, I suppose we'll have a pretty long wait. It's already pretty notable in St. Louis, which after all has more people (metro area) than Jamaica or Mongolia and more than half as many as Norway or Ireland. So, hmmm. Herostratus (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even the mythological tie-in is a huge stretch and an example of a newspaper writer editorializing like hell. I would be willing to almost guarantee that NOBODY in that stadium was thinking "hmmmm... this reminds me of that story about Ratatoskr." I definitely see a very thin thread of notability at this point, but correct, there's not going to be any real critical analysis of the situation. And if there is, it will definitely be very tongue-in-cheek. Trusilver 19:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Realistically in the context of sports and not a subject like world peace, I would expect to see WP:INDEPTH stories that look at the series of events as a whole and summarizes the phenomena as opposed to a string of recent news reports that just report the event. Each baseball year's rallying cry is not necessarily worthy of an article, and instead is WP:PRESERVEd in sections like 2010's rally thong or 1984's Cub-Busters.—Bagumba (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, 100% this (coupled with your earlier WP:N quote that "Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage,"). A single-year event that draws heavy coverage because of the era we're in does not de facto become notable. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userify/Holding pattern Basically. I have no problem with oddities where the oddities are really and truly notable. See Pine Tar Incident, Disco Demolition Night, Ten Cent Beer Night, Shot Heard 'Round the World (baseball), Kirk Gibson's 1988 World Series home run, The Catch (baseball), et al for examples of moments/trivia/etc in baseball history notable enough to warrant articles. But there has to be some level of historical relevance regardless of the coverage that the modern news media creates. IE, we don't have an article for "Rocktober", the term universally used for the Colorado Rockies surprising run through the 2007 playoffs. Had they won the Series or been a dominant team for a decade maybe that term would've gained further traction and we would, but they didn't and it didn't. (note, I actually stand corrected, someone recreated that, but I'm going to be bold). Every event in any widely watched forum will get tons of coverage, that doesn't mean it warrants it's own article. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. This squirrel definitely has legs, and so does the Rally Squirrel meme, if you watch this Major League Baseball Legends of the Fall commercial that features the Rally Squirrel.[20] The 40,000 Rally Squirrel towels the team was planning on handing out before Wednesday's game shows that the St. Louis Cardinals are heavily marketing this squirrel thing. At the least, current sources in the article alone are enough to show notability. I know, it's only sports, it's only St. Louis, so I may be nuts. First Light (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has become a phenomenon during this postseason and gotten lots of media attention. MLB has even released a "Legends Are Born in October" commercial about the squirrel: [21]. It certainly has notability and is one of the most recognized moments of this postseason. If, as time goes on, it becomes clear that this moment is forgotten and no one cares about it anymore, then will be the proper time to nominate the article for deletion. For now, it is notable and sourced and should remain. TempDog123 (talk) 04:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind, if this article gets deleted, then so should Rally Monkey, as they are similar. You HAVE to be fair in editing an encyclopedia, and if this is taken out, I will put a request to remove Rally Monkey for the same reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.35.44 (talk) 07:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a big difference, Rally Monkey was 10 years ago, and years later there are still references to it. Anyone that claims to know what will happen here is looking at a WP:CRYSTAL ball. The fact that keep's are saying we can delete it later if it dies might be a sign of getting carried away by WP:RECENT news. Its either notable today and forever, or its not ready for prime time.—Bagumba (talk) 07:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I ran in to an article on WSJ, and I had no idea what the Rally Squirrel was. This wikipedia entry helped. Please keep. 160.83.72.207 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks! Thats the point I was trying to make when I made my original vote to keep. Wikipedia has become a "go to" source for the public at large when they want more information on a subject -- be it the Rally Squirrel or Russian tanks. That seems like a good thing to me, not something to get all pretentious over and claim something isn't encyclopedia worthy. We're the peoples encyclopedia, right? So lets give the people what they're searching for. Sector001 (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you really need proof that this thing is now a mascot, check this out (picture taken from downtown St Louis during a pregame pep rally) http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?fbid=10150351119061248&set=pu.49095766247&type=1&theater
Delete. Let's put this in perspective: this is just media hype (WP:SENSATION) that will have no lasting impact or legacy (WP:EFFECT). -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have a crystal ball the rest of us don't? How can you know at this point what lasting impact or legacy the Rally Squirrel may have on the team, the fans, and the city? For all we know at this point "Stan the Rally Squirrel" (as some are calling him, in honor or MLB Hall of Famer Stan Musial) might become a secondary mascot to "Fredbird". As noted in the photo link above they're already making appearances together. Sector001 (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please! A squirrel running across the field! Even if you don't use common sense, it still fails WP:TOOSOON and WP:RECENT. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And he also could not become a secondary mascot. That's the point of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Something isn't notable when it has the possibility to become notable, it is notable when it's notable. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As the IP contributor notes, there's an article about it in the Wall Street Journal. Not a passing mention, primary focus. It's notable now. --GRuban (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:EFFECT says: "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." Just in case anyone overlooked a side.—Bagumba (talk) 00:58, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak (and surprised) Keep. When I saw this AfD listing, I fully expected to vote to "Delete." But the news coverage given to this critter in the most respected media outlets, including New York Times and Wall Street Journal, surprised me. The extent of coverage indicate this has gone beyond sports trivia to achieve a sufficient level of notability. Other examples have been given above, and one I find to be somewhat comparable is Paul the Octopus, who garnered major media attention last year. I'd suggest keeping this open for another week to see how thing play out with the conclusion of the NLCS and World Series. Cbl62 (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is the first time I heard on a rally squirrel and this article just told me what it was. Dontforgetthisone (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wide coverage in the media; very likely to be remembered for a long time, as opposed to just being news. (Sports fans have long memories...just ask that one goat in Chicago). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:25, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Very likely" = WP:CRYSTAL. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - What the hell is wrong with you people? The team has been dressing up a person in a squirrel suit (which the link showing it was conviently removed, obviously by a person wanting this article removed, because it shows how there are currently TWO mascots for St Louis) so the team currently has 2 mascots. It shouldn't matter how it "plays out" in the future, because there are at the present time (and historical reasons for this team, because this will be noted as past mascots in Cardinal history) TWO mascots- Fredbird and Rally Squirrel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.0.33.230 (talk) 01:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Close as no consensus, default to keep: Come on, the project will live. Plus Herostratus deserves a chance as an established editor to make the article worthwhile keeping.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ICarly (season 6)[edit]

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

Too soon. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too soon? Maybe this AfD was created too soon - this article has only been around for an hour. I agree that it's too soon to have a page for a TV season still in filming but a merge may still be justified. §everal⇒|Times 17:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources for this at all. Season four hasn't even ended yet and reads as a supposition using tenuous Twitter and YouTube videos (unreliable sources) and past stories that don't mention a sixth season that there is a sixth season when there has been no announcement. No merge, no redirect; iCarly articles are quickly becoming the latest in-cruft here that we have to Whack A Mole. Nate • (chatter) 10:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whack-a-Mole, er, I mean Delete - WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTAL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if it were announced officially that there was a season 6 (and that means more than reading the tealeaves from random YouTube videos) there is no need for an article about the season until there is some significant and well referenced information to put in the article. Up till then, the main iCarly article is sufficient. So WP:TOOSOON. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence[edit]

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

This is an online project, for which I can not find any references which discuss this project in detail, and which are not connected with the subject itself (of which 2 references are). Whilst two lines is valid as a stub, for an article it is not enough as there is clearly a lack of multiple, independent third-party sources which discuss the subject in such detail (rather than in passing) to be able to write a substantial article. I will gladly eat my hat, and withdraw the nomination if sources can be found which would enable at least two coherent paragraphs to be written on the subject. But I have looked and I'll be damned if I can find anything substantial. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 16:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 50k hits on google is not enough to show the project is notable? There are hits on G News but only one is in English and I am unable to use the others. It is cited at least 33 times on G Books and around 100 times on G Scholar. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This source I have found goes into detail on the project [22] The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is the problem with all of the sources I have found. They are either press releases (such as that link), or they are from sources which are connected with the subject, or they are blog sources and the like. I really can't find anything that is independent and indepth (meaning more than an arbitrary or passing mention). It may warrant a mention in an article on the organisations (if they are in themselves notable), but I am failing to find anything substantial here. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 16:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that just about every university on the planet links to this project? It is akin to a journal, just online and a free resource. The Last Angry Man (talk) 16:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At present there is too little coverage of the website to establish WP:NOTABILITY or support an article. TFD (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Parent organization is notable, and it is RS for its scion organizations. It is referred to in a number of cites found bia GScholar - thus it is used by people in that area. OUP is also a reliable source - thus meeting WP notability requirements. The founder is notable per articles from AFP etc. [23] shows even further the notability of a group assciated with CNRS. [24] further gives Semilin's c.v., and credentials, as well as mentioning this online encyclopedia. [25] establishes the notability of the CNRS. [26] establishes notability of Sciences PO. Thus parent organizations are specifically notable, and the online encyclopedia has been mentioned in WP:RS sources. No remaining reason to delete, hence keep. Collect (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not think that something can be notable by association, otherwise all websites would be notable, because the internet is notable. Can you provide any articles that have been written about this website? How can we have an article about an encyclopedia when such a basic fact as to whether it is neutral or a reliable source cannot be established through third party sources? I recommend we merge the article into its parent. TFD (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - What TFD is stating, is that notability is not inherited. That is a common, and long-held, principle on WP. Notability can only be met by, sorry for being a broken record, multiple, independent, in-depth sources. Additionally, the number of links on Gscholar is not relevant here, as all of the links are to the actual website itself. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 18:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This appears to be a peer reviewed academic publishing company, no less notable than the hundreds of other publishing companies and university presses listed in Category:Publishing companies by year of establishment. Set up by the Institut d'Études Politiques de Paris, it also appears to be a not-for-profit organisation and thus is notable per WP:NONPROFIT, being international in scope. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are however forgetting point 2 of WP:NONPROFIT. Being "international" in scope, merely means that a non-profit with a local scope is not necessarily notable. But point 2 is not negotiable in terms of notability of any subject on WP. That being it requires multiple, independent, in-depth sources. As to "appearances" of whether it is peer reviewed...the website certainly makes that claim, but it is impossible to verify because, and we get back to the original reason, there is a complete lack of multiple, independent, in-depth sources which discuss the subject. WP:N is certainly not met. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 18:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is a guideline and not a policy. In the case at hand, we have OUP and other RS sources referring to the project. We have the parent organizations being absolutely notable, and their pages about the project are RS. Your cavils that this is not notable wear thin indeed. There is an essay WP:DEADHORSE which should be read. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is a guideline, yes, BUT, WP:V is policy. Refer specifically to Wikipedia:V#Notability which states very clearly "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 19:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also note it is covered by "NewsRU.com" [27]. I trust this is RS. Liberation.fr [www.liberation.fr/monde/010127137-crimes-et-massacres-de-masse-en-ligne] is also RS as far as I can tell (major newspaper). Russian and French reliable sources. Notability in spades, doubled and redoubled. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly a translation of the French news article states: "The issues we cover are too sensitive to sites like Wikipedia."[28]. Amen. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does everything have to turn into a war zone with you people? I think I am actually going to be grateful to get blocked, this place is a madhouse. The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep(commenting as Russian speaker). There are tons of Russian publications about Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence: this, this this, and so on. Last link is Russian electronic "encyclopedia of encyclopedias". Hence this article definitely belongs to wikipedia, and it can be significantly expanded based on these sources. Biophys (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your first link is to an article on a right-wing Eastern European website called www.kuruza.com that talks about "Anti-wikipedia". The fact that extremist websites link to this website is insufficient to establish notablity, you need to show that reliable sources have noted the connection. Note that we do not have an article about kuruza, and I can find no rs to support an article. TFD (talk) 02:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly notable in France, with its launch mentioned in Le Monde. [29] The article on fr.wikipedia.org predates this one as does the article on zh.wikipedia.org. The current article is not particularly well written or researched. Mathsci (talk) 04:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Mathsci on both notable and work required. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 03:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Road FC[edit]

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

New MMA organization that fails criteria in WP:MMANOT. Makes no claims of notability and lacks good reliable sources. Mdtemp (talk) 15:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete New MMA organization whose admitted purpose is to train Korean MMA fighters for bigger things. They just put on their 4th show last weekend (article claims they've done "numerous events"). No indication of notable fighters, lacks good reliable sources, and doesn't seem to meet the criteria in WP:MMANOT. Apparently an earlier version of this article was PRODed in May. Papaursa (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a first or second tier MMA promotion. It's pretty new so it might grow, but right now it's a training/proving ground for upcoming Korean MMA fighters. Astudent0 (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin McCallister[edit]

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

This article fails WP:N, WP:WAF and WP:NOT#PLOT. Queen of smart alecks 02:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This AfD was created on 17 September; however, the nominator failed to complete steps 1 and 3 of the AfD process at the time. The effective opening date of this AfD should be 7 October, the first date it was listed in the AfD log. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but clean up and discuss the possibility of redirecting. The character is discussed as part of coverage about the first two Home Alone films (and let's face it, there isn't going to be good coverage about the fourth film). I am open to redirecting because it is possible that the character can be encapsulated in the first two films' articles. A preliminary search engine test does not appear to show books or academic articles analyzing the character in an isolated manner. One exception is here, but it can be part of coverage about the film. A general search does not seem to put the character on any kind of credible list of famous or popular characters, but feel free to point them out to me. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very well known fictional character.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep amd clean up article on sourcable character who is the subject of more than trivial coverage in multiple secondary sources. However, a second option better than outright deletion would be to properly merge and then redirect to Home Alone#film series. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline and the content of the article is a plot-only description of a fictional work, material not appropriate for Wikipedia. Jfgslo (talk) 07:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The content of the article is not relevant because content can be cleaned up or replaced. I think we can agree that the first two films are notable and that Kevin McCallister is the star character in both films. What is your criteria for when a character can have a stand-alone article? Coverage about a fictional character will inevitably be tied to the works in which he or she appear, so what is the threshold for a new article? Also, in this case, the person's name is a plausible search term, so why not recommend a redirect? Erik (talk | contribs) 17:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Character is notable, propelling Macaulay Culkin's career. Jclemens (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge to Home Alone series article. There are no sources here to WP:verify notability. I'd speculate that some exist, but I can't be sure at this point. Since most of the article is a recap of the plot of the movies, and the movies are primarily about this character's experience, it seems this might be redundant to the plot recap of the series. Better to maintain one plot summary than two. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can Emed[edit]

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

Promotion of a person of limited note. Off2riorob (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering this artist has little information on the google and the internet, This article contains brief and trustable references about this artist. (Such verifiable references as; ntvmsnbc.com etc.). And this artist (Can Emed) is not have that fame as other great artists such as Picasso. And so the less number (9 Reference)of references maybe view as "balanced". And the article contains "not long" and "not exaggerated" informations about Can Emed. The article also contains balanced, verifiable informations that can be verified on the internet by an international-artists-organisations such as; UNESCO/AIAP/UPSD such is also a reference. The article contains 3 clean photograph, one is taken on the artist's exhibition-reception. And so, there is not an argument here such as this artist (Can Emed) is really living person. And so, I cannot clearly understand why this page is on "deletion process" I'm university degree class knowledge about especially art, history of art and contemporary art. Also I am the same person here. My purpose is for creating this article (Can Emed) about my self is trusting your independence. If any person who has a remarkable proffession on his/her work and knowned by internationally, can be freely opened an article about himself/herself. İf ---İf he uses balanced view, reliable sources, and verifiable references SUCH AS I DID on "Can Emed article". I dig on google and find nearly 9 trutable-reference on the internet. --If this is not view as; "resourcable", then there is not argument can stays here on the feet.. Becouse I still not understand the argument of the deletion process in "turned-on".

If any wise web-master here, ıf any wise editor here, PLEASE I NEED YOUR HELP, NOT DELETION WITHOUT AN EXPLANATION ! I NEED TECHNİCAL HELP IMMEDIATELY................ I still trust your independence, and international wisdom. Sincerely Yours; User; Johnaemeth (Can Emed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnaemeth (talk • contribs) 20:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mhahahah!!! :D "promotion of a person with limited note" it is interesting you know ? :D ..Becouse 1 weeks ago, I'm informed about "cleaning your long-notes". And now, it turns; "promotion of a person with limited note" mhahahahah!! ..Go ahead, FREELY, AND BRAVELY SAY; "I DO NOT WANT YOUR PAGE ON WIKI; ARTİST CAN EMED" ..I'm mature person dude you know, last week I broke up my ex-girl friend, and I am not in the mood now. Please be an adult, "I STILL DO NOT SEE THE DELETION ARGUMENT OF THAT PAGE" :pP :D ;) Sinrerely yours; " Off2riorob " :D I'm still laughing for good (reaaly) :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnaemeth (talk • contribs) (UTC)

Unfortunately I will continue to seek the informations for "Deletion-Nomination".. If ı cannot understand the specific-reasons and the specific-arguments of why the process still continues... Then I cannot solve the matter for good.. Yes? So, unfortunately I will continue to posting, becuse, simply I cannot understand... One weeks ago, there is another process that this article "needs to be cleared".. and one-weeks after there is deletion-process which I informed that the article is contains "short-information"... İs this an Irony or I is it a coincidence ?????????? I hope you can easily understand my reason for my questions to the wiki-team ............. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnaemeth (talk • contribs) 08:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As Wikipedia:Unreferenced BLP Rescue did its work, I noticed that is one of the most common categories of self-created BLPs, and showing notability is often quite difficult -- because sourcing simply doesn't exist. For Mr. Emed, we have absolutely no google news hits (not even bare mentions), which is always the first bad sign. Then, since he is Turkish, I know I need to search the the archives of the top turkish newspapers (because they won't come up in Google). There is one 2002 bare mention of Emed participating in a young artists show [30] in Hürriyet. This is confirmed by the single bare mention of him in the 2003 "Turkish Art Yearbook" which is his only Google book hit [31].

I ask Mr. Emed if he can let us know of any other independent sources -- newspapers, magazine, etc. - to show that he meets Wikipedia's notability standards. Mr. Emed, please read Wikipedia:Notability to understand what I am talking about. You can read the same basic rule in Turkish at tr:Vikipedi:Kayda değerlik, that is how the Turkish wikipedia applies the same concept. As things look now, however, it appears this article is heading to deletion.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 11:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of those exhibits or awards notable? WP:ARTIST Dream Focus 16:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reference I found was to him simply being part of an exhibition, unfortunately, among a list of other artists. It verifies his existence as an artist in Turkey, I suppose, but no more.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 19:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as explained by the original nominator and everybody else associated with this article save the subject himself, who should read WP:UPANDCOMING. It's a shame, really, I kinda like what I've seen of his work and his influences. --Orangemike (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete / Userify fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 03:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Hazebroek[edit]

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

Not noteworthy person Off2riorob (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. I don't see the notability here, but the usual caveats apply if an album takes off. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Malda Sadar subdivision. There is a clear consensus to merge the article with Malda Sadar subdivision per general practice. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 14:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Madnahar Jr. High School[edit]

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

I know we tend to give schools the benefit of the doubt, but this is pushing it. Three teachers, less than 70 students, no indication of notability outside its local area, nothing usable as a source on Google - fails WP:GNG ~~and WP:SCH~~. Yunshui (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWP:SCH is a failed notability proposal, so it should not be cited as if it were actually a guideline. Edison (talk) 16:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's right, y'know - I thought it seemed to contravene other advice I'd seen on school articles. Striking from my nomination; thanks for calling me on it. Yunshui (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Malda Sadar subdivision, since it has long been the common outcome of AFDs for articles about typical schools below the high school level to merge them to an article about the organization, municipality, or school district of which it is a part. There does not seem to be an article on a "school district" as in some countries. Does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG, the relevant notability guideline. Edison (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Keep - Past precedent is that high schools are inherently notable. I've never seen a limitation to that based on size, but would change my position if I'm mistaken. Trusilver 20:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Merge per above - per this[32] comment by User:Edison on my talk page. I somehow managed to filter out the "Jr." notation on my readthrough of the RfA AND the article. Only high schools are afforded unconditional notability.Trusilver 00:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Malda Sadar subdivision per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Malda Sadar subdivision per usual practice. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 03:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal and infinite universe: artwork[edit]

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

About a painting. The artist, Mark Bridger, doesn't have a Wikipedia article on him and a brief perusal of search results indicates that he isn't notable. The price listed for the painting isn't relevant because no one paid that much. Mr. Vernon (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not look like an independently notable work of art, although its creator might actually be notable [33] (but that's an argument for a different day, I suppose. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per sbove, not notable and not encyclopedic...Modernist (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given that the article was written by Cosmospainter (talk · contribs), this smells like self-promotion to me. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:31, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage about this piece of artwork in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:CRYSTAL, WP:TOOSOON seem to apply. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broken (video game)[edit]

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

WP:NOTABILITY - an unreleased video game. Gnews search for "Playstation Vita" and "Broken" brings up only references to news being Broken, not to this game. Nat Gertler (talk) 13:53, 7 October 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) 14:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Delete There is literally no information about this game except a couple database entries that it will be a launch title along with dozens of other entries. --Odie5533 (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. Message for the page creator: you can create the page when the game is released. Creating a page for a "working title"? Stop wasting ppl's time. --Hydao (talk) 04:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability not establshed, virtually no info known yet, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 14:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 03:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AgrowSil (brand)[edit]

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

It seems that only one of the listed sources actually mention this product. The rest are sources about the benefit of silicon to plants. I was also not able to find any reliable sources that mentioned this product in any great detail which makes me think that it fails WP:GNG. Topher385 (talk) 15:13, 4 September 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, UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Were this a notable brand I'd expect Google News to at least have heard of it, and it hasn't, even without the (brand). - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a consensus to keep this article after addition of the "Guardian" reference. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 15:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

View Askewniverse[edit]

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

I searched and searched and can only find a handful of references to this term, all of which make it clear that Smith uses it, but nothing to establish that it's notable in and of itself. ~T P W 11:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 60,000+ google hits, including one from the very reliable Guardian, which I've added as reference. Took me about 30 seconds to find. Must be many, many more.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No concrete evidence that the fictional universe meets the general notability guideline or that it has reception or significance in a real-world context to presume that it can be more than an indiscriminate collection of information. Google hits are not evidence of notability. Jfgslo (talk) 07:28, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure what you are asking for here. There's nothing in GNG about fictional creations having to have "significance in a real-world context" (the topic obviously has "reception"). I've already added The Guardian. The subject has also been covered in the New York Times, Total Film and many other good news sources.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add Tigerboy's references. Failing that, Merge to Kevin Smith's bio. Jclemens (talk) 02:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tigerboy, and with his references. I think the subject easily passes WP:GNG. Seven feature films, with all their associated press and other sources, take place in the View Askewniverse, I think that qualifies it as notable. Ella Plantagenet (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I echo Jclemens suggestions. Traumerei (talk) 07:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (G12) by Sphilbrick. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generation R[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. Concern was Non-notable research study. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOT#OR ClaretAsh (talk) 11:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is definitely a notable research study. Unique in its kind and it also has a link with an other Wikipedia article about the Rotterdam study. An other research project conducted in Rotterdam, the Netherlands and known world wide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktoebes (talk • contribs) 12:33, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article's author claims (above) that this is "definitely notable" but I'm finding that hard to confirm. But as it stands the article is a copyright violation anyway; I have tagged the article for speedy deletion accordingly. RichardOSmith (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Broadly, Keep !voters fall into one of two camps: (1) the other side in this ethnic/territorial dispute get their flag, so we should too, and (2) meatpuppets. Thanks to Melikov Memmed and Saygi1 for putting some considered effort and thought into their replies, but none of these comments addressed the arguments to delete, which are grounded in policy and have a clear consensus behind them. causa sui (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of South Azerbaijan[edit]

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

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

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

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

per WP:Partisanship, WP:RS, and WP:OR. Aliwiki (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the reason given above.--Aliwiki (talk) 11:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "South Azerbaijan" itself is an irredentist fringe theory, basically a fantasy concept. No state of official entity by that name exists or has ever existed. Such Wikipedia articles should deal with real states or former states, not fantasies and myths. Therefore, this article is basically a product of nationalist WP:SOAPing, which cites a bunch of blogs, and unreliable non-academic sources, violating WP:RS and WP:OR. Notable Azeri scholar Shireen T. Hunter, of Georgetown University, address this issue in "Iran and Transcuacsia in the Post-Soviet Era", writing in page 106 that "After the Ottoman empire had collapsed, both the Communists and, later, the Azerbaijani nationalists developed the myth of one Azerbaijan divided into a southern and northern part, comparing it to what happened to the two Germanics and to Korea, and using this myth to justify irredentist claims toward Iranian territory.". Kurdo777 (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Takabeg (talk) 06:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before finding the article Irredentism, I thought "irredentist" might have something to do with teeth. Edison (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete":Wikipedia is not a place for advertizing (WP:NOTADVERTISING). Just look at the following gallery:

name of the file :Which flag is the flag of South Azerbaijan (?!)
name of the file :South Azerbaijan red flag
name of the file :Flag of South Azerbaijan

Are we spending our time here to find out something that no two people agree about it ? "South Azerbaijan" itself is an unknown entity , then the flag of that strange creature is more unknown than that !! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a real Kurdistan too, why don't you suggest to deletion of Kurdistan's flag?--Orartu (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S : Again , for showing that all so-called flags are inventions of a handful of our editors in Wikipedia , try this : (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No news , No book , No Scholar source and No free image out of our Wikipedia !
Hallelujah , we made a flag ! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep South Azerbaijan is not a fantasy concept. There is Azerbaijan in the north called Azerbaijan Republic, and Azerbaijan in the south, modern Iranian Azerbaijan. This is a fact. South Azerbaijan means Azerbaijan placed in the south. [34]. You had written “no state of official entity by that name exists or has ever existed”, but do you know what is Stateless nation?. The flag of Southern Azerbaijan [35] recognized by the UNPO. Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization (UNPO) is an international organization of political organisations and governments representing self-proclaimed "indigenous peoples, minorities, and unrecognised or occupied territories" At the UNPO, Southern Azerbaijan as an unrecognized territory is represented by SANAM (Southern Azerbaijan National Awakening Movement) and this Flag recognized by the UNPO [36]. This is a fact The CRW Flags. --Melikov Memmed (talk) 06:18, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1:(UNPO) , Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization , has nothing to do with UN (United Nations) . That is an organization that every person who pays the membership can be a member . About your other explanation , (Az.Republic in north and modern Iranian Azerbaijan in South ) , that would be correct if you write it as "Modern Az.Republic (representing historical Arran and Shirvan ) and historical Azerbaijan" .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2 In support of this flag to be self-made and baseless , I searched the history of the file in Wikimedia Commons , the uploading editor has no other edit but only this few flags of Turkic language groups in every country that they live , and the uploading person find out to be a Page that is :test, spamming , vandalism or bot created page . This shows the file is baseless . Besides that , the interesting point is that the user:Melikov Memmed , here has changed the source of the picture that user:Tarkan uploaded ! I want to ask is it possible to change the source of a file that someone else had uploaded ? Or is it a change to deceive the readers about this file having a source ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 06:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Melikov Memmed; It's better that you have a look to the links you've posted. The source of the flag in crwflags.com is Gamoh. The question here is that who has given the guardianship of Iranian Azerbaijan to this organization?! UNPO has nothing to do with UN; and here is Wikipedia, not UN to register your country. Moreover, we can extract error from line by line of the UNPO article. As an example, line 1 consider Iranian Azerbaijan as occupied territory which is in contrast to the international descriptions ([37]), and there is no other recognized international organization which has ever made such funny claim about Iranian Azerbaijan. As a conclusion, there is no reliable source to consider those flags for Iranian Azerbaijan, and anything exists is just self-made materials.--Aliwiki (talk) 12:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure fringe article. Not enough facts and reliable sources. It must deleted or moved to another relevant article about Irredentism or irredentist movements. Xooon (talk) 06:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure advertising, plus imagination. In fact 08:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. False and misleading material; there is no such land or flag by that name and has never been in the entire History. These flags similar to other advertising sketches risen from designer’s fantasy, non-existent in real world. The sources are not reliable; Blogs , UNPO, etc. do not meet the requirement of WP:RS.Cyrusace (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

For you there is no such land by the name of South Azerbaijan but Google search finds 461000 results.--Melikov Memmed (talk) 09:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Fallacy: This statement has taken the naivety of groundless justification to extreme. This is Wikipedia, not a playground for expression of unlogical comments to support baseless material. As a matter of fact, there are more search results in Google for other mythical entities such as ‘Jersey Devil’, ‘Bigfoot’ or ‘Lochness Monster’, etc. than for South Azerbaijan. Even so, the number of Google search results cannot be used as reason for justifying the reality of the subject in search. Cyrusace (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Per Melikov Memmed. --►Safir yüzüklü Cekli^mesaj 09:32, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Kurdistan's flag has danger to Iran and region not Flag of Azerbaijan.

Orartu (talk) 10:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't discuss whether flags are dangerous or not :))) Takabeg (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a real Kurdistan too, why don't you suggest to deletion of Kurdistan's flag?--Orartu (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Define "real", please. The existance of a region is not at stake here. Existiance of the flag is. Kurdistan's flag is verifiable as existing. This beastie is not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See Mahmoud Ahmadinejad under South Azerbaijan Flag, no one is imagining anything, this is a real yet unofficial flag. There is a serious debate going on in south Azerbaijani community. Article may be weak, but it'll be improved, there is no need for deletion. --Khutuck (talk) 11:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that picture of a president and a flag is so important . Then what if I build a page about the new flag of Az republic that the colors are up side down comparing the previous colors ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The picture you linked shows current Azerbaijan flag, and irrelevant to our iscussion. Do not be absurd and try this: Take an Azerbaijan flag, turn its back, take it upside down. It looks like the one you have linked, intead of Blue-Red-Green, it'll look like Green-Red-Blue, but it is the same flag. here is an example.Khutuck (talk) 13:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yap , that is a good answer , I think the European union said the same thing : turn it around!: Avropa :ÜZR İSTƏMƏZ

The flag in that picture is not of South Azerbaijan, but the reverse of the flag of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Takabeg (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Khutuck, that's a reverse image of the flag of Republic of Azerbaijan, look at the flag right above it, it's the reverse flag of Singapore. For some reason, some of the flags in that section of the image, are reversed. Kurdo777 (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Khutuck. Emperyan-message/ileti 13:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: User:Emperyan was most likely brought here through WP:CANVASSING. This user had not edited any Wikipedia pages in 8 days, before showing up on this page simply to "vote", without presenting any arguments. Kurdo777 (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Supermæn (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: User:Supermæn was most likely brought here through WP:CANVASSING. This user had not edited pages in two weeks, before showing up on this page simply to "vote", without presenting any arguments. The user also has less than 50 edits in total[38], and no prior history on Deletion discussion. Kurdo777 (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Melikov Memmed.--Ebrahimi-amir (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: User:Ebrahimi-amir is currently under investigation as a possible sock-puppet of User:Orartu [39] who also voted this page above. Kurdo777 (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin and readers:This claim refused and investigation declined with one of checkusers, You can see here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Orartu--Orartu (talk) 11:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to readers: Kurdo777 was under investigation 6 days ago, but no one mentioned this as a Note to closing admin. User is only under investigation, not declared a sock-puppet yet. By pointing this out in an irrelevant discusion, Kurdo777 is completely ignoring WP:AGF policy, and even the concept of presumption of innocence. Stop trying to fork views in your side, and use real arguments for the deletion of this article, not propaganda technics. --Khutuck (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.I completely agree with Melikov Memmed.--E THP (talk) 08:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: User:E THP was most likely brought here through WP:CANVASSING. This user had been mostly inactive with half a dozen edits since April and has no prior history on deletion discussion. Furthermore, he has less than 50 edits in total. [40] He, as the others above, were clearly asked by someone to come here take part in a "vote". Kurdo777 (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--AnBinava (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC) — AnBinava (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note to closing admin: User:AnBinava was most likely brought here through WP:CANVASSING. This user just signed up hours ago, in order to "vote" on this page. The edit here was this user's one and only edit [41], which further proves that someone has been canvassing for votes on this page, outside of Wikipedia. Kurdo777 (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Orartu. --Goktr001 (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: User:Goktr001 was most likely brought here through WP:CANVASSING. The user had been inactive for almost one month, before showing up here to "vote" as his first edit since Sep 14th. Further more, he has less than 50 edits in total, and no prior history on deletion discussion pages. [42] Kurdo777 (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the existaince of the country is not an issue here one way or another. The existiance of the flag is. No WP:RS that it can be verified as existing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment : I ask an admin to checks the users if they are suitable for tagging as Wikipedia:Single-purpose account and to avoid WP:CANVASS . Isn't it strange that so many votes have no text ? No opinion ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did a quick search, and found multiple videos of this oversize South Azerbaijan flag being used during demonstrations in Iran/South Azerbaijan [43], [44] and [45], as well as here during an event and film screening abroad [46]. So it doesn't look like a "fantasy concept" when used in the open on the very territory of Iran by the very people from Iran that proclaimed this flag. If we delete this flag, then we need to delete flags and articles about all self-proclaimed entities. Let's be consistent. --Saygi1 (talk) 00:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please read WP:RS before making such comments. Youtube is not considered as reliable source. The links you posted don't prove anything. Anyone can upload such videos.--Aliwiki (talk) 13:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that while YouTube video's are in general acceptable for Wikipedia articles as evidence, in this case I have provided YouTube videos as evidence not in an article, but in a discussion, in a talk page. Therefore, your point does not apply. More importantly, it's a legitimate source that shows the flag of South Azerbaijan in action in Iran and abroad. That's enough evidence to prove that the article about, and the flag of South Azerbaijan, deserve to stay. --Saygi1 (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Conditionally keep~~: According to google books,

"Flag of South Azerbaijan" -Llc 0

"Flags of South Azerbaijan" -Llc 0

"Flag of Southern Azerbaijan" -Llc 0

"Flags of Southern Azerbaijan" -Llc 0

But it's obvious that there are flags of Azeris in Iran. (See: p. 1766). But these flags are not commonly accepted as a "Flag of South Azerbaijan" by Iranian Azerbaijanis. The title such as "Flag(s) of South Azerbaijan", "Flag(s) of Southern Azerbaijan" are not acceptable. We can change the title. For exampel, (List of) Azerbaijani flags in Iran, (list of) Flags used by Azerbaijani nationalist in Iran etc... And we have to prove that these flags are proposed as the common flag of "Iranian Azerbaijan", "Azerbaijanis in Iran" etc. with reliable sources. If these flags are nothing but flags of organizations, we have to remove them from list. I think that we can add flags of Azadistan, Azerbaijan People's Government etc. Takabeg (talk) 08:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for your comment . There is no doubt that there are many organizations and groups that perhaps most of them have flags . If that organizations are noticeable enough , each of them can have an article in Wikipedia . But the problem is when so many organizations are so non important that no separate Wikipedia article is dedicated solely to them , that is wrong to represent a list of them in an article under the title Flags used by Azerbaijani nationalists in Iran . Only one group has an article in Wikipedia , and it can represent it's flag in the article of it's own , but that flag can't be represented as the "flag of Iranian Azerbaijan (or so called South Azerbaijan)" . According to WP:NRVE , Notability requires verifiable evidence : where is the evidence that shows this flag is more notable than the other flags , and all the other flags are notable enough to be represented in a Wikipedia article . This photo or that photo showing a group of people with a flag can't be viewed as a reliable source : who are the people in the photo ? Is it verifiable that isn't it a photo shop picture ? Are the mass of people in the picture agree with a person with a flag in his hand ? and many questions like this ...--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.there is no South Azerbaijan!!! Shahin (talk) 08:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL? What does 'no' mean? Please give an description of 'no' and admins please be careful! WP:CANVASSING is similar with WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL. --88.226.213.234 (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

South Azerbaijan is a fringe theory. Moreover, there is no reliable source for the flag. The article is original research based on non-reliable and self-made materials.Shahin (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a random web-page, or a place for proposed fictional flags of fictional imaginary states. This is not encyclopedic at all. Nokhodi (talk) 01:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: that's the point, as an encyclopedia, it needs to be consistent. If flags of other non-states are accepted in Wikipedia, then certainly so should this one, as it's actively used by South Azerbaijanis wherever they live. --Saygi1 (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The James Mihanan source also mentions Talyshistan and Lezginistan flags. I will be starting a new arbcomm or looking forward to setup a new committe of expert admins in Wikipedia given the massive voting above. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 08:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 'See Flag of Kurdistan', for example, why one is different than the other? And I am not sure why this article is being repeatedly nominated for deletion, when the deletion was clearly denied. Atabəy (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can find reliable sources for "Flag of Kurdistan". But we cannot find it for "Flag of South Azerbaijan", "Flag of Southern Azerbaijan". I think this is reason why this article is being repeatedly nominated for deletion. Takabeg (talk) 01:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a sufficiently reliable source. Moreover, there was a de facto Azerbaijani state 66 years ago on this territory, called Azerbaijan People's Government, which merits the article on the flag.Atabəy (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UNPO is not a UN. It is a paid membership organization with no relaibility. The flag of the Pishevari government is very a different flag than the one on this page, and it is mentioned in its own article. There is no reliable source that the mentioned flag on the page is the "Flag of South Azerbaijan" --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 12:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. South Azerbaijanis have exact same rights as Kurds and others and this flag legally and correctly represents them.--NovaSkola (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: User:NovaSkola was most likely brought here through WP:CANVASSING, the user had been largely inactive, had no contribution in 10 days, before suddenly showing up here to vote. Kurdo777 (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Flag of the Southern Azerbaijan National Awakening Movement, which is what it is. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this article deals with only the flag of the Southern Azerbaijan National Awakening Movement, we'd better merge this article into Southern Azerbaijan National Awakening Movement. Takabeg (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again thank you for your comment , but doesn't that article already has an image ? And what does this article have other than contents of that one to be merged with ? The only purpose of this article is to give WP:WEIGHT to the idea that the separatist movement in Iranian Azerbaijan is so popular and it is not an imaginary concept , but the whole article is nothing than a title plus an image at all . The creating editor only wants the recognition at all : no information about the time of adoption , the real sizes , colors , adopting groups and like so is written on the article and it will never be written there , because whole story is a creative art of a few editors in Wikipedia plus a handful of person in a closed unknown room in unknown place !--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Kurdish flag is similar as it too has no state nor citizens but if that flag is allowed then so should this Azerbaijani flag. There must be consistency and no double standards. Neftchi (talk) 09:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not Encyclopedic. Arguments like "X is on Wikipedia, so must be Y" or "X people have the same right as Y people" ,... are not acceptable. "Scholarly reference" on the topic is non-existent. Wikipedia should not become what I term as "official back-up of teenager pseudo-intellectual fights on Facebook, YouTube, Forums, ...". Xashaiar (talk) 10:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: that's the point, as an encyclopedia, it needs to be consistent. If flags of other non-states are accepted in Wikipedia, then certainly so should this one, as it's actively used by South Azerbaijanis wherever they live. --Saygi1 (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Important Note to admin: User Orartu has announced in Azeri wikipedia ([47]) about this AFD to collect votes!--131.175.161.14 (talk) 11:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious that there is a flag named as “Flag of Southern Azerbaijan” but the opponents think that the title is not acceptable, because it not accepted as the flag of whole South Azerbaijan. I think that this is not a reason to delete the article, because even official Flag of Azerbaijan is not accepted as the flag of whole Azerbaijan, Tabriz is the capital of East Azerbaijan, but there the Flag of Azerbaijan is not accepted, because the flag of Azerbaijan means the flag of Azerbaijan Republic. And “Flag of Southern Azerbaijan” means an unofficial flag of unrecognised territory named as Southern Azerbaijan recognized by the UNPO. Here there is no politic grounds, this is a fact. --Melikov Memmed (talk) 12:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, UNPO is a paid membership organizaiton and is not reliable organization. Even the flag of Pishevari was different than the one you mentioned. What are your reliable sources that mention this as "Flag of South Azerbaijan". UNPO is not UN and not WP:RS. Please provide your reliable sources. Also there is no "South Azerbaijan" in terms of mono-ethnic concept, as West Azerbaijan has a large Kurdish population, the name Azerbaijan is not an ethnic name (it is a historica Persian name), there are also Assyrians, Armenians, and Tats/Talysh and other people living in East and West Azerbaijan. Did they agree on that flag? So if your only source is UNPO then the articles title at most can be "Flag of South Azerbaijan according to UNPO". But the reliability of UNPO is extremly questionable. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument doesnt make sense, does every Iranian citizen agree with the Iran's new Islamic flag? Very doubtful and yet there it is. If this flag isnt allowed then the Kurdish flag should also be removed for the same reason. Why this double standard against ethnic Azerbaijanis? Neftchi (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia works with WP:RS. Where is your WP:RS source that this is the flag of "Southern Azerbaijan". UNPO is not an RS source. So I asked you again to provide [[WP:RS}] source. The Kurdistan flag has tons of WP:RS source. The flag in this page, does not. Also mind WP:SOAPBOX and WP:FORUM. Provide WP:RS sources (not UNPO or a website or two) which mentions such flag. For Kurdistan flag, one can find easily dozens of RS sources. If you think you cannot find dozen of RS sources for Kurdistan flag, then nominate it for deletion. The flag in this article has as much as hits as the Lezgin and Talyshistan flag. That is not enough for Wikipedia to make an article about it. It is simply a flag of Southern Azerbaijan National Awakening Movement. We must follow WP:RS, not nationalistic arguments. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and all of it's controversies are for when there is analogy between two article , but the nature of Iraqi Kurdistan and it's place in the new Iraqi constitution is very different with this case . Anyway the proposed flag of Iranian Kurdistan in UNPO is a different one with Iraqi Kurdistan : that is different with the flag that has an article and this one has no article at all !--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note to closing admin, as one user mentioned please see the canvassing from another wikipedia here: [48]) --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The flag exists as per available reliable sources already mentioned on this page.Ladytimide (talk) 19:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you haven't follow the discussion. Which reliable source? Can you show us? --Aliwiki (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: User:Ladytimide was most likely brought here through WP:CANVASSING, either off-wiki, or based on the public request for keep votes on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia. It should be noted that this user has no prior history on deletion discussions, and had been inactive from Sep 27th until the the day this AfD was created. Kurdo777 (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia works with WP:RS. Do you think that Ethnologue is a reliable source? Can you find RS sources for North Azerbaijani language, South Azerbaijani language. A flag of organization is called as "Flag of South Azerbaijan", but what is South Azerbaijani language? --Melikov Memmed (talk) 06:19, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument doesn't make any sense. Read WP:Synthesis and don't synthesis things by yourself. Language and flag are two different things. Languages don't have flags. --Aliwiki (talk) 11:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to say that if Wikipedia works with WP:RS, how without a reliable source here it is created "new language". Double standard for "South Azerbaijani language" and "Flag of South Azerbaijan"? --Melikov Memmed (talk) 12:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you discuss your point of view about Azeri language in corresponding page ? By mentioning it here , the brief logic of your comment is "When article A is using the source that I think is wrong , then the article B should contain the information that have wrong source ( and /or ) no source at all !! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before me here it is discussed about South Azerbaijan, Talyshistan, Lezgistan, Flag of Talyshistan, Flag of Lezgistan, so and I discussed my point of view about "South Azerbaijani language". Why you don’t think that those are wrong, too? Double standard?--Melikov Memmed (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least comparing a flag with invention of a flag . But a language with a flag ....--Alborz Fallah (talk) 13:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Melikov, I do not see yet a flag of Talyshistan and Lezginistan article. The other discussions you made are irrelavant as you can talk about lack of RS in other articles. Please provide WP:RS references that the flag in this page is the flag of "South Azerbaijan". UNPO is not UN, nor RS,..it is a paid membership organization. So the article's title should be "Flag of Sanam".. but it can just be merged with SANAM [49]. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you do not see yet a flag of Talyshistan, but the article about Talysh-Mughan Autonomous Republic with the flag of Talysh-Mughan Autonomous Republic had created from February 2006, though during its short life there was no flag, flags were drawn later only for propaganda. You do not see yet a flag of Lezginistan because there is such flag. I know that UNPO is not UN. At article it is clearly, that UNPO is an international organization of stateless nation, at the UNPO, Southern Azerbaijan is represented by SANAM and a flag representing South Azerbaijan was also recognized by the UNPO. I don’t cite UNPO as RS, it is quite normal that citing UNPO here we had affirmed who is the member of UNPO. When citing UNPO I will affirm that Tabriz is capital of Southern Azerbaijan, then you can raise an objection that UNPO is not RS. I think that at the article there is not political grounds, the article is weak, but there is no need for deletion, except nationalistic views and I hope that admin will take it into account.--Melikov Memmed (talk) 04:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again that has nothing to do with this article. If you think the flag in Talysh-Mughan Autonomous Republic is not valid, go discuss it in that article! What does it have to do with this article? UNPO is a paid membership organization. It has no WP:RS reliability in Wikipedia and has been discussed before. What you failed to bring is WP:RS] sources that this is a flag of "South Azerbaijan". It does not equate with the Kurdish case, because there are many WP:RS sources with the flag of Kurdistan. If you do not agree with this fact, then also go discuss it in the flag of Kurdistan wikipedia page. The flag in this page is the flag of SANAM and a member of UNPO. But you needs multiple WP:RS sources (like the flag of Kurdistan) to even establish such an article in Wikipedia. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you seem to switch your position after what user Melikov Memmed said - your previous threat about Talyshistan, etc., was not a reasonable argument. --Saygi1 (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for this edition per Wikipedia:Verifiability & Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Takabeg (talk) 07:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure advertising--Penom (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please elaborate how's that? Multiple videos and printed materials show that it's as real as any flag, and is used actively even today, even in Iran, as well as abroad. --Saygi1 (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Saygi; Videos and self-made materials don't prove anything. Formation of a country is the job of UN, not Youtube or weblogs.--Aliwiki (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Khodabandeh14.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: that's not really a position. Per Khodabandeh14 you mean he asked you to come and vote here? --Saygi1 (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User Saygi1, the interpretation of other users' comment is not your job. His answer is clear. If no, have a look to above and see similar comments of your friends who voted keep per user ...'. --Aliwiki (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or selectively merge to article(s), if any, about the movement(s) associated with these flags, such as Southern Azerbaijan National Awakening Movement.The majority of opinions above, on both sides, use arguments to avoid in AfDs or arguments that are irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion, such as whether or not a state or territory called "South Azerbaijan" exists or ought to exist. The policy-based problem with this article is the lack of substantial coverage about the flag(s) it describes, causing the topic to fail WP:V#Notability and WP:GNG. We would first need a decent article about the secessionist movement (if any) itself before we can consider writing a separate article about its flag(s). Sandstein 13:37, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (selectively if necessary) to South Azerbaijan. There are virtually no independent sources that discuss these 4 or 5 competing flags. According to WP:GNG, this stub is inappropriate because it's based mainly on WP:PRIMARY sources. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that Southern Azerbaijan National Awakening Movement is not even mentioned in South Azerbaijan. Too obscure perhaps? Anyway, the SANAM article already has the only referenced flag here, so redirect to SANAM. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Big Bash League. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 14:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Big Bash League trophy[edit]

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

This subject doesn't require a whole article dedicated to it. There's no Friends Provident t20 trophy or Indian Premier League trophy articles (rightly so). Any information about the trophy can be included in a small section on the main competition article. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 09:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If any tournament such as IPL or Friends Provident t20 does not a page dedicated to its trophy, it means that the trophies for these tournaments does not have any history associated with its making. They were simply created for the winner of the tournament. And how does it matter if those tournaments do not have a page on their trophies? Afterall, the main aim of Wikipedia and related pages is to provide as much information about a topic as possible and if the BBL trophy has enough information which can be listed down in a separate page, we should create a new page rather than looking at silly IPL or T20 tourney pages for inspiration on how to "copy" articles.--Karyasuman (talk) 11:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Big Bash League article. Compare, for example, article on Wisden Trophy, a long-standing competition: there's material on the actual trophy as well as on the cricket, and the same can be done here. To give it a separate article smacks of recentism. Johnlp (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you John, recentism was the word I was looking for on the nomination. Karyasuman, who says these trophies don't have a "history" behind them? The fact they don't have articles could possibly be down to how their design was reached not being encyclopedic and not particularly important. That is where you're wrong, unless is inherently notable and historic then there is no case for a stand alone article. Is the BBL Trophy inherently notable and historic? No. Should it be included in the main article? Yes. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Big Bash League per John. Who knows, this trophy may be notable in the future, but at the moment, all references in the article are primary sources and I can't find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Jenks24 (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the info if relevant and referenced into the Big Bash League, but I don't think we need to retain the redirect, because virtually no one will search for info on the trophy, other than those few involved in the design. The-Pope (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe the redirect needs to be retained to provide attribution. Jenks24 (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I usually try to make a decent effort to find sources for articles at AfD, but I'm afraid that encoutering the phrase "which is hitting Australia this December" in the very first sentence convinced me that this was written as a promotional piece rather than an encyclopedia article, so I won't bother with this one. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speed Modelling Contest[edit]

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

Unreferenced article, long tagged as an orphan and mostly a dead end. Biker Biker (talk) 08:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Existence ≠ Notability. Fails the Notability guidelines. Springnuts (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 03:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Howard (artist)[edit]

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

Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. A lengthy google search didn't turn up any secondary references and there is a request[50] (presumably from the subject) to delete the article - something which has been past precedent to do at the request of marginally notable BLP subjects. Trusilver 06:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The 'see also' links have no apparent direct connection to the artist ... the 'Poster Gallery' link is in fact a sales page ... notability has not been sufficiently asserted in this article. Colon el Tom 10:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not particularly notable or encyclopedic...Modernist (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject has not done enough to establish notability.Vincelord (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 03:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Folli[edit]

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

Non-notable former minor league baseball player. Did not play in 2011. Fails WP:BASE/N. Alex (talk) 05:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 05:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. — NY-13021 (talk) 05:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not appear to meet any notability standard. Rlendog (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Spanneraol (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Monty ₈₄₅ 05:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles

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

Previous AfD was closed as a no consensus. Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and the list topic of this article has not been a group or set by independent reliable sources, so it does not meet the general notability guideline. Also, none of the sources provided by the article provides an actual list with all items. The content itself is created with original research by synthesis and it consists of plot-only descriptions of a fictional works. As such and since Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists, I do not think that it is suitable for the criteria of appropriate topics for lists and, therefore, it should be deleted. Jfgslo (talk) 04:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 04:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 04:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: lists need to meet the general notability guideline. No sources to WP:verify notability of this class of things. Nearly any science fiction story, and nearly any video game will have dozens of fictional materials in it, so as to render this list completely indiscriminate. Delete the article, what little can be verified should be covered at the respective articles about the movies/games/etc. Shooterwalker (talk) 05:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This list is useful for mentioning elements that aren't notable enough to have their own articles. But the list is way too long, it needs to be pruned of elements that were only mentioned in passing rather than having real in-story notability. JIP | Talk 05:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The list should either be pruned to those items that either have their own articles or have third-party sourcing establishing that they are notable in some manner (ideally both), or deleted and rebuilt from the ground up. In any event, clear inclusion criteria should be established and adhered to if the article is not deleted. Doniago (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the claim above that this fails notability guidelines is off the mark here. There are multiple entries in the list that have their own articles (e.g., Adamantium, Kryptonite, Liquid electricity, Mithril, Unobtanium...), which makes this at the very least an index of article topics. That the subjects of the listed articles are fictional elements, materials, etc., is a defining, shared characteristic, so a list grouping them by that characteristic is an appropriate article index and poses no notability problem. And many of the fictional materials that may not merit standalones are discussed in the articles on their respective works or media franchises, and I think at a minimum those are also appropriate to link here. Regardless, the extent to which this should list non-standalone subjects is purely a matter for cleanup and normal editing and discussion. This list could additionally function as a list of lists (e.g., List of Star Trek materials, Category:Dune substances), providing further utility for browsing and indexing.
As for whether this list comprises OR, I don't see more than an unsupported opinion on that asserted above. The nom's generic string of acronyms doesn't amount to a particularized argument about this list nor are his interpretations consistent with consensus regarding such lists. The title is a bit of an unwieldy conglomerate, but it seems to me to be an attempt at being inclusive and comprehensive, to avoid splitting hairs as to whether a fictional substance is an element or alloy, metal or mineral, etc. The parent category is simply titled Category:Fictional materials, which may or may not be too vague, and which has Category:Mythological substances as a subcategory. In sum, I see some issues for further development, but none for deletion. postdlf (talk) 06:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to be a sensible way of indexing and listing notable topics such as dilithium, ice nine and tachyons. If one looks, it isn't hard to find discussion of this out there such as Journal of the Minerals, Metals and Materials Society. Warden (talk) 07:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- From that article (full text available here): "No discussion of materials in the movies would be complete without some discussion of the Star Trek universe. Star Trek, in its many incarnations (six television series, ten theatrical features, countless books), has inspired nearly two generations to pursue careers in science and technology...While the best materials technology in Star Trek is reserved for the television series (e.g., the legendary dilithium crystals), one notable exception occurs in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home...[E]very engineer’s hero, Scotty, makes a trade with a materials supplier by giving the formula for transparent aluminum." I think that paragraph really hits home why we shouldn't turn our noses up at pop culture subjects. postdlf (talk) 07:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The topic is clearly notable. Over 60 of the entries have individual wikipedia articles, and that's only the ones that have blue wikilinks. Numerous reliable sources are available for many these fictional materials. This is a nice way of listing everything together. Sourcing and individual notability of entries are editing cleanup issues, not the purpose of AfD. Those arguments and the original research concern may apply to some of the entries but certainly not all or most. As such the rational for deleting the entire article is invalid. I suggest closing the AfD and starting a cleanup section on the article talk page instead to discuss entries that may not belong. Polyamorph (talk) 08:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was initially inclined to suggest weak keep per JIP, but - how does one prune or filter without expending more editorial energy on this article than would be prudent? Have the list or don't. There are notable fictional elements etc., so it's a keep for mine. Colon el Tom 10:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly worth keeping, but maybe not in its present form. Lynch 7 13:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - topic is certainly notable, and the large number of blue links shows how widespread it is in Wikipedia. Having a list simply of the blue links is in itself interesting and useful; the additional information clearly may need citations. Deleting the whole thing simply sounds unhelpful. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - The subject is notable, and it's clear from the span of the list that there should be a central collection of the things, for which a list is ideal. The list might need pruning to remove those fictional elements that are not notable, but AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but only with editorial pruning back to entries which are notable enough for their own articles (even if the article is not written yet). If that cannot be achieved than I would argue for deletion in a future AFD, on the grounds that it is an unmaintainable list. Inline references are needed to show secondary coverage of the entry, beyond appearing in the original fiction. The list is indiscriminate at present. The article should be severely pruned if it is kept, since it has many nonnotable entries and some entries not even part of the stated membership list. Dilithium crystals and Kryptonite, yes. "Thaum" as a "unit of magical strength? "Swivel" as a "time travel process?" Not even close to being a possible member of "fictional elements, materials, isotopes and atomic particles." Maybe they belong in some other list. A cleanup might well remove "crapton:" a "joke particle" found in Washington DC. "Hull material" is a general description, and not a unique fictional substance. It is unencyclopedic to make such a list a grabbag of every fictional particle or substance which every appeared in any form, which was mentioned in some book, game or cartoon and never gained any notice otherwise. Edison (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some entries link to their own articles, some have significant coverage or are significant in the notable series they are in, and thus should be listed here. Not everything on a list needs its own reference of course, so anything that is in question should be discussed on the talk page. Be in bad form to someone to fail to delete an article to go through and wipe out most of it, as happens far too often. Dream Focus 22:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG OR purge unreferenced entries in the list. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think past consensus is that a list with several notable entires, lacking a POV, and legitimate use has been kept. The last AfD closed with no consensus, but I think one is forming in the affirmative. Bearian (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Challenges to individual items, in the normal editing process, might be appropriate. htom (talk) 03:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed, there are relatively few reasons for wanting a list of this sort, but some people will need it, and it would be as good as impossible to find most of these items without this list. In summation: it should be kept because it accomplishes a task that a Wikipedia user researching a related topic would find impossible. - Lord Vargonius (talk) 01:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Strait[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable former minor league baseball player. Did not play in 2011. Fails WP:BASE/N. Alex (talk) 05:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 05:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Career minor leaguer fails WP:BASE/N, and not enough significant coverage to satify WP:GNG. Previous AfD redirected him to a minor league article. Now that he no longer playing, his article has nowhere left to go. Soapbox: This is exactly the reason I do not like redirecting players to a minor league article that only lists current players. Either they are notable for a standalone or they are not.—Bagumba (talk) 05:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. — NY-13021 (talk) 05:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A quick search yielded this article. But unless there is more coverage, deletion may be appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 14:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. joe decker ^{talk to me} 14:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Herr[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable individual. Never reached major leagues, fails WP:BASE/N. Currently not affiliated with any team. Alex (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 04:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Look. I have to go to bed. I'm just going to copy-paste the keep vote from the 1st AFD that caused the consensus to be determined as keep.

"International League All-Star at AAA in 2007. Also meets the general notability guideline: Interview in the Springfield News-Leader, full profiles in the Lancaster New Era, Lancaster Intelligencer Journal, Niagra Gazette, a partial profile in the Myrtle Beach Sun News, etc. More as well, if needed, but that should be plenty, IMO. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)"[reply]

Satisfies WP:GNG enough for me, just as it did for others two years ago. Good night. Whatever. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 04:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Spanneraol (talk) 14:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Kotchman[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Per WP:BASE/N: "Minor league players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires are not assumed to be inherently notable." His inclusion in the Scouts Hall of Fame is trivial at best, as there are Hall of Fames for seemingly everything, and being inducted into one does not automatically create notability. The Hall of Fame is literally just a wall.[51] Alex (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unlike a run of the mill scout that won a non-notable regional award one year, the subject here is a member of the Professional Baseball Scouts Hall of Fame, the highest honor and achievement for a baseball scout. Instead of news articles simply saying, "Person A won the Midwest Best Scout Award" as a passing mention, there are numerous stand-alone articles covering this notable establishment, including minorleaguebaseball.com, Major League Baseball's official minor league website. [52][53][54][55][56][57] Please tell me you understand there's a difference between winning a regional award that only has passing mentions and a national hall of fame that receives coverage from the MLB? Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 04:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate your snark. It makes me want to cry. Alex (talk) 04:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[58][59][60][61] First writeups I've found so far from a simple google search. More to come tomorrow when I find them. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 04:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A 35-year baseball lifer who managed extensively in the minors, has a son in MLB, and was inducted into the Scouts HOF likely passes WP:GNG; it's just a matter of spending time with Google News Archives. Beyond that, perhaps Alex could explain how the Scouts HOF is non-notable but the "Midwest Scout of the Year," a regional award, is notable, as Alex is claiming in the Richard Klaus AfD which is also pending now. — NY-13021 (talk) 06:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also want an explanation on how an article created by Alex is notable because a scout won a regional award that has received zero coverage, but this article created by someone else is deemed not notable by Alex because he thinks being in the scouts hall of fame is not notable even though it's received quite a bit of coverage from many reliable sources, including MLB. Midwest Scout of the Year > Professional Baseball Scouts Hall of Fame. Please explain your logic in coming to this conclusion. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 19:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hall of Fame induction. Spanneraol (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pile-on keep and admonishment to Alex as regards vindictive nominations. — KV5 • Talk • 18:17, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ooh, admonishment. That's almost as terrifying as a UN sanction. Alex (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jeana Keough. There is a consensus to merge and redirect the article to Matt Keough and Jeana Keough. Per Spanneraol, redirecting to Jeana Keough is a better option, however first I am tagging it for a merge. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 15:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Keough[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. Notability is not inherited, as his seems to be as he is somewhat, somehow associated with a reality TV show. The biography of his article seems almost to entirely establish his notability through inheritance.

His involvement with the show, from what I can tell, is hardly mentioned on Google News Archives. All other results are WP:ROUTINE. He was a rather WP:Run of the mill minor leaguer, and minor leaguers are not inherently notable per WP:BASE/N. His secondary involvement on the reality show was a rather WP:Run of the mill too, come to think of it. Alex (talk) 03:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 03:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Matt Keough after merging sourced, high level material that would be relevant to the "personal life" section of that article, e.g., "Matt's son Shane also played professional baseball. He was drafted by XXX and played in the minor leagues from XXXX to XXXX." Rlendog (talk) 04:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Matt Keough. Not notable for standalone article, but should always strive to preserve verifiable information.—Bagumba (talk) 04:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jeana Keough rather than to his dad, cause it seems like people searching for info on him might be coming more from his brief appearances on his mom's reality show. Spanneraol (talk) 15:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jeana Keough. I had a hard time deciding between the two, but I think Spanneraol is right. A reference to Shane is made at Matt's page already. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Klaus[edit]

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

This article fails WP:BASEBALL/N. There are no significant claims to satisfy WP:GNG supported by reliable sources. Prod was declined by article creator as he says the "Midwest Scout of the Year" is a 'notable award'. I find no proof of this award being notable, and the article and its lack of significant coverage from numerous reliable sources doesn't do enough to satisfy notability. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 03:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 03:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Midwest Scout of the Year returns nearly 3,000 hits on Google Search and dozens of times in Google News Archive. It was mentioned among the accomplishments of notable scouts like Al LaMacchia and Buck O'Neil.[62] It's prominent mentions in these articles indicates that it is not some meaningless little rotarian award. Alex (talk) 03:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Alexsautographs (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 03:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be meaningless, but I don't see anything that makes it notable by Wikipedia standards. By google standards, 2900 is a pretty low number. Oh well, WP:GHITS, etc. I'd rather look at thew news results. There's 39 news article results, all of which just mention it in passing, saying, "Person A won the Midwest Scout of the Year award." I'd be more than happy to withdraw if you find the references to establish notability for Richard Klaus and actually implement them into the article. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 03:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment This Alex guy is unbelievable. In the Tom Kotchman AfD, which was nominated within minutes of this one, Alex argues that Kotchman's induction into the Professional Scouts Hall of Fame is non-notable for Wiki purposes. And now, on the same day, Alex is claiming that a regional award, "Midwest Scout of the Year," is notable. How does that make any sense? — NY-13021 (talk) 05:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I hope Alex can explain that this isn't just to make a point.—Bagumba (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BASEBALL/N, which makes no assumption about notability of Midwest Scout of the Year winners, or career minor league players or managers. I cannot find evidence of multiple sources of significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. The other players mentioned were notable by playing baseball at the highest level, not because of the award.—Bagumba (talk) 03:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 "keep" !voters have not shown the coverage to be significant. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buck Elliott[edit]

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

This article fails WP:BASEBALL/N. Scouts are not classified as passing these guidelines, and the article's creator has made no further assertion of notability to satisfy WP:GNG from any reliable sources. AFD started after prod was declined. Author requested AFD instead of addressing prod, and I complied. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 03:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 03:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm actually going to go with keep on this one for now. Though we shouldn't really use Google News results as an indicator of notability, there are 337 "Buck Elliott" results in the Google Archives. I'll skim over them later to see if I can uncover anything that mentions him in depth. Alex (talk) 03:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Alexsautographs (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 09:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep—tis true that the article doesn't make the case for his notability, but as we read in WP:BEFORE esp D3, this is not a reason for deletion. there are sources attesting to elliott's notability: here and here and here and here and here too, and even a couple of mentions in the nyt, which i can't link to from here. seems to me to meet gng, let alone wp:ath. what the article creator has failed to do is irrelevant. (note to Alex: many of those ghits are for another buck elliot who played in the 20's. i've picked out the best ones about this guy from the first three pages of gnews hits, but there were many pages to go).— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More than happy to withdraw (*edit* nevermind, the references above are trivial, routine, or passing mentions only) as long as someone actually adds the references to the article and we're not instead brought here yet again after zero improvement just like Jack Mealey. Author of the article requested this be brought to AFD, and I complied. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 03:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, hold the phone. I assumed that you had provided me sound references since you went through that whole speech about policy and that's irrelevant and so on, but really these references are pretty bad. Please don't throw WP:BEFORE in my face and then give me an articles that only tell me A) He got 'suspended' for a week in the minors for working too hard B) WP:ROUTINE, WP:Run-of-the-mill coverage and C) passing mentions. I'm all for keeping articles that are notable, and my requirements aren't that much, but being condescending about WP:BEFORE and then giving me these articles as 'proof' that he passes WP:GNG is pretty bad. You say these were the best, so my outlook on this article's WP:POTENTIAL is not good at all. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 03:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I though Eepfleche did a great job improving the Jack Mealey article. Alex (talk) 03:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he did. During the 2nd nomination. You made no improvements between the end of your 1st nomination and the start of the 2nd to delete your own article, a 2 year gap where you could have easily made the necessary improvements yourself instead of bringing it back to AFD so that everyone else could do what should've been your job to begin with, as covered at Wikipedia:Your first article. The references from the Pittsburgh Press and books were found easily through google and would have been more than enough to avoid both AFDs to Mealey. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 03:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

is this really why this article is here? perhaps everyone should read WP:NOTCLEANUP as well as WP:BEFORE, esp part that reads In the event you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, using the advice in Wikipedia:How to cite sources, or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern. perhaps nominator will withdraw?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. There is a problem with this article clearly failing WP:BASEBALL/N not cleanup, and adequate sources have not been found to establish notability. You made a big speech earlier, and it almost fooled me, but almost all of those references you gave are just bad. Only one article was partly decent, but I'm not about to declare a person notable because he got 'suspended' for a week for overworking. We might as well just throw WP:GNG right out the window if that's how far we've fallen in requirements. Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 03:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Most of these links seem pretty trivial. The 4th is arguably significant coverage, although not great, and the 1st may be a smidge more than trivial (though not in my opinion). Rlendog (talk) 03:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the word I was looking for. "This man got suspended from baseball for a week because he was, quote, 'overworking'" - "Who is Buck Elliott?" - "You've won the Daily Double!" Agent Vodello^{OK, Let's Party, Darling!} 04:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see, now the discussion is actually about what it ought to be about; whether the sources indicate notability. you think they don't, i think they do. it's a useful conversation. your nomination and subsequent comments show that you didn't check, but just threw it out here so other people would clean it up. that doesn't seem like a good way to go about cleaning up an article. anyway, i'm sorry if i offended you and i certainly didn't mean to throw anything in your face. i'll shut up now and let people discuss whether the existing sources, and hopefully not just the best i found from the first three pages, demonstrate notability.— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Vodello. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, without multiple sources of significant coverage. Also note that an article shouldnt cite other wikis like the SABR one as they are not reliable sources.—Bagumba (talk) 09:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE, couldn't find any non-trivial sources that indicates notability Secret ^account 19:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of minor DC Comics characters. Through the sources prove that the characters are in existence, they do not prove if the characters are notable enough to have their own article. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 16:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thinker (DC Comics)‎‎[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Thinker (DC Comics)

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

Contested PROD. There is no evidence that the fictional villains with the Thinker name, individually or in group, meet the general notability guideline because there is no signficant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. As it is, any article about them can only be a plot-only description of a fictional work as they do not have reception or significance in reliable sources, so the topic is unsuitable for Wikipedia. All that can be added beyond plot are cameo appearances in other media, which does not represent notabilty, and it is in line with an indiscriminate collection of information. A search engine test only shows tertiary an primary sources with trivial mentions about some of the characters with that name, but no secondary sources that makes analytic or evaluative claims about the fictional characters by themselves. The article itself is only referenced with four primary sources, so it doesn't show how this topic is appropriate for a stand-alone article. Jfgslo (talk) 02:21, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 02:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 02:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of DC Comics characters: T. Jclemens (talk) 03:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Preferably merge to List of minor DC Comics characters; but I would wish not to delete this article: so Keep. Arussom (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Character has an entry in The Encyclopedia of Super Villians (p.343). There's also a color plate of character.SPNic (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Character is also in 500 Comic Book Villians by Mike Conroy (Barron's/Chrysalis, p. 118)SPNic (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Being listed in these two books, among hundred of other characters means, for me, that there are sources that prove the character exists, not that the character meets the notability guideline. I believe the article should be merged either to List of DC Comics characters: T or List of minor DC Comics characters. Maddox (talk) 16:40, 11 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) 00:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of DC Comics characters: H. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hyena (comics)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The subject of the article, two minor fictional villains from a comic book, does not have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, so the subject does not meet the general notability guideline to deserve a stand-alone article. Also, the content of the article consists of a plot-only description of a fictional work and there is no evidence to suggest that it can be anything other than that. The article doesn't provide a single reliable secondary source to back up the content, only primary sources and unreliable websites. With no evidence that the fictional characters have reception and significance in the real world, or significant coverage in reliable sources, the article should be deleted. Jfgslo (talk) 02:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 02:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Jfgslo (talk) 02:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of DC Comics characters: H, trimming appropriately in the process. Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trout-slap nominator. Character is in The Encyclopedia of Super Villians (pp.160-161).SPNic (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Both versions are covered in 500 Comic Book Villians by Mike Conroy (p.243).SPNic (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to list of DC comics characters. The villains are still minor and lack that significant coverage to meet the general notability guideline. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Take a look at that list article. It's just that - a list. It doesn't include the kind of information that appears in the Hyena article, and that article presents a good amount of information that would have no place else to go. Doczilla _STOMP! 07:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to list od minor DC characters. Fails GNG. Maddox (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Monty ₈₄₅ 15:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley Vaughan Santos[edit]

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

The actress/host may be notable, but what about this character? No third-party publications yet for this fictional character. Self-published scripts and episodes of a cancelled All My Children can be insufficient, even 60 or 1,000 episodes and scripts. --Gh87 (talk) 01:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC) ~~I vote delete. --Gh87 (talk) 08:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep. Nominator did insufficient research. There are third-party publications for this fictional character. See this Google Books source. The character (yes, the character, not just the actress) has been featured in TV Guide over a dozen or so times. The nominator is obsessed with the fact that this show has been cancelled (even though it will likely continue on the Internet), as though cancellation factors into notability. The nominator continues to do insufficient research on these characters, searching Google Books under the wrong combination of words. Mainly hindered by quotation marks being in the search engine, etc. In this case, it is not entirely the nominator's fault since the article is currently not under its WP:COMMONNAME. But the nominator is still not careful in his or her searches. A topic should be thoroughly checked for notability before its deletion nomination. That includes checking under a different combination of words. 110.88.209.200 (talk) 04:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books previews many, not all, pages of every copyrighted pressings: in other words, some pages are not shown. How is Google Books reliable? Unless a material is a public domain, I am uncertain of using Google Books as a research. I can't use poems as reliable sources, which I have recently researched. And there is no TV Guide from Google Books, unless I've overlooked. I know that this character is not as legendary as Erica Kane, but I have used only this character's first name (Hayley) and the name of the show, and I could not find anything reliable except this which discusses parent-child issues in soaps and Hayley is mentioned in just one page and some others which non-previewed pages possibly mentioned her. --Gh87 (talk) 05:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books doesn't have to preview all pages. How is Google Books reliable? Are you kidding? The top of this page even says "Find sources" with links to Google. It's about what is found on Google Books. If Haley has been written about in non self-published books, which she has, that demonstrates third-party publications. Even if written about in poetry. We cite the books and/or what they say, not Google Books. The reference you provided, plus that poetry one, and the Journal of popular film and television source found in the initial Google link I showcased above prove that the character is likely notable. There may be no TV Guide entry in that Google Books search, but my point is that she has been featured in TV Guide a dozen or so times. I'm not sure why there are not more third-party hits specifically about her, but I doubt it's because she's not notable. As Wikipedia:Search engine test#Notability says, "Raw "hit" (search result) count is a very crude measure of importance. Some unimportant subjects have many "hits", some notable ones have few or none, for reasons discussed further down this page."

I just feel that you need to be more careful in tagging these articles as possibly non-notable and tagging or nominating them for deletion. You even tagged Zoe (All My Children) as needing notability[63] when just that one Associated Press reference is enough to establish notability.[64] Do you really believe this character was only written about once in a major news source and that was it? Just the simple Google search Zoe transgender All My Children shows otherwise. And there's more than enough about the character on Google Books.[65] and a bit on Google Scholar.[66] At least you didn't nominate that article for deletion. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This editor has canvassed and tried to persuade members of a project to save this article. - [67]RaintheOne ^BAM 20:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You should read what are acceptable aspects of WP:CANVASSING. Alerting a project that related articles are up for deletion and that they may want to attempt to save any of them is acceptable! 174.137.184.36 (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should read it more like. Seriously the line "the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate." - describes your action in a nutshell. If you keep it up you'll be reported. Simple really.RaintheOne ^BAM 16:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said at the project: I don't appreciate you lying in this debate. Alerting a project that related articles are up for deletion and that they may want to attempt to save any of them is acceptable! I did not say "Save these articles." So your assertion that I "tried to persuade members of [the project] to save this article" is false. I reported what I believed to be a threat to the project [this editor nominating articles without sufficiently checking for their notability and/or because he or she perceives characters from a cancelled show to be non-notable; the editor has pretty much stated the latter in other All My Children deletion debates]. And I said, "I'm alerting the project about this for those who would like to comment in the deletion debates and/or try to save these articles."

Keep what up? Defending myself? If you mean alerting more editors, appropriate canvassing is alerting the project and then moving on. Or alerting editors who have been involved with editing this article and then moving on, which is not something I'm going to do. I have given no indication that I am going to alert any more editors.

Thank you for turning this into being about me and painting me as some corrupt IP address, instead of trying to help. Sarcasm. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article way to important and should remain kept. Notable information is included and there should be no question of deletion.Casanova88 (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The fictional character does not have significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject to presume that it meets the general notability guideline. All that shows up with a search engine test are trivial mentions, unreliable sources or mentions regarding the plot of the series, but no concrete evidence to presume that an article about the character can be anything other than a plot-only description of a fictional work, material unsuitable for Wikipedia. Jfgslo (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've given this plenty of thought. There seems no hope of salvaging this one. A lot of the characters material is simply not noteworthy.RaintheOne ^BAM 16:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Articles like this should be redirected to List of All My Children characters or List of All My Children miscellaneous characters, not destroyed to where what could be a redirect is also destroyed. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect: These are the only two possible outcomes otherwise deletion is intentionally wiping away the characters purpose. Simply reidrect it to the miscellaneuous character article and keep it intact with all of its information and image.149.4.206.16 (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of the other All My Children characters can go, but Hayley is one of the core characters on the show, even if she's been gone for a long time. I would say she's the second-most well known of all the female AMC characters. Ella Plantagenet (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major character, sufficiently sourced. The fact that the show has been cancelled has no bearing on this discussion. Please note that the television show itself serves as sourcing for fictional character articles, additional sources have been added to the article. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 16:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: You need to stop mentioning the cancellation of AMC, it's not cancelled, it's just no longer airing on television. It will go online in January, and will be available through onDemand systems. Hayley was a pivotal part of AMC history, and was on-air for many years. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 5:48PM 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep Evidence is available for it being one of the most important characters. If not, certainly merge & redirect instead of delete. No argument has been given about why a merge is unsatisfactory, for the excellent reason that there is no rational argument. DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable character on notable series, close this sucker. Some character articles on the project may not be worthy, but this is not one worth debating further at this time.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 page with ~~List of All My Children characters~~ List of All My Children miscellaneous characters, amended per this discussion. (non-admin closure). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:11, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gillian Andrassy Lavery[edit]

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

This article doesn't have notability establised from third-party publications. I'm not sure if self-publications help keep this article strong; I am not confident about this article's content. It may appear plagiarized without citations. Also, this article has been recreated from Gillian Andrassy ever since it was redirected to List of All My Children miscellaneous characters. ~~--Gh87 (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)~~ I vote delete. --Gh87 (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. It's fairly simple to redirect this article to List of All My Children characters or to the list you mentioned. When IPs or newbie-ish users revert you, you are supposed to revert them, report them and get the redirect protected. Needlessly nominating these articles -- articles that don't gain enough traction -- for a deletion debate and destroying what could be redirects is absurd. 110.88.209.200 (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. "When IPs or newbie-ish users revert you, you are supposed to revert them, report them and get the redirect protected." Actually, a proper response would be to discuss the article with the person (providing some guidance when appropriate), with the goal of working together to improve the article or determine consensus to redirect. You might even consider requesting a third opinion. But "revert, report, protect"? Fairly simple that there is a better choice. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 02:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Cindamuse, you don't know how the majority of these soap opera editors are, do you? Most of them are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. And when they are informed of them and given reasons why an article should be redirected, they ignore that and then recreate it. If you notice, Gh87 explained the reasons the article should be redirected in his or her edit summary. But these editors did not listen and simply recreated it. Even now, the article is a copy-and-paste move of some sort because most of the edit history is missing, which should have been fixed. They had to have seen the edit history just to undo the redirects. They just didn't care. And when it's obvious they don't care, I would say, yes, they should be reverted and then reported. Only reported after trying to engage them in discussion about it, of course. If that doesn't help, because more and more editors (or the same one under different IPs or user names) keep recreating, then getting the redirect protected is the best choice. 174.137.184.36 (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: The article should be merged into List of All My Children miscellaneous characters due to the notable value of the character. Even though it does not warrant an individual article, the character should remain as part of a minor/miscellaneous article.Casanova88 (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline as a stand-alone subject and the article is a a plot-only description of a fictional work. Jfgslo (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Casanova88. Jclemens (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage in sources that can WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: This was a very notable character on All My Children albeit a decade ago. This is a fictitious person WP:GNG standards should be laxer. Wlmg (talk) 02:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why should WP:GNG be laxer than it already is? Can you explain your opinions about WP:GNG please? --Gh87 (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge and of course redirect. No reason against a merge has been given by anyone. And we have never had any agreement about the proper standards for fictional characters--there are some very long discussions in multiple places; it remains unclear whether the GNG in any form is the suitable rule, and each case must be considered individually, using whatever standard the people at the discussion care to adopt. It also remains undetermined whether the rule against plot only discussions of a fictional work apply to individual spin-out articles, or only to the coverage of the work as a whole. I have some pretty definite views on the matter, but the general discussions were perhaps the least satisfactory of any I have had at Wikipedia, as all attempts at compromise were prevented by one side or the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 23:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of All My Children miscellaneous characters. Inclusion is encyclopedic as a character in a long-running television program, however, the subject is not considered a major character. "It may appear plagiarized without citations" lacks applicability with our deletion policy. If you can substantiate a copyright violation, that is fine, but vague speculations do not benefit a deletion discussion. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 02:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I will not delete so that content can be merged by editors, but the redirect is binding.. causa sui (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional women of All My Children, volume 1[edit]

(View AfD)

The following articles lack notability establishments and insuffice amount of citations:

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

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

Images do not matter, especially since they are copyrighted and licensed. What is the point of keeping these above articles if the show is cancelled and characters have been insufficiently mentioned in third-party publications? Do I have to explain any further? --Gh87 (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You have a weird definition of WP:Notability. What does the show being cancelled have anything to do with whether or not a character is notable? It's not any different than a show naturally ending its run and the show/and or character still being notable afterward. Buffy the Vampire Slayer has been off the air for years and Buffy Summers is still notable. Likewise, Erica Kane will remain notable long after All My Children 's cancellation. Forever, really.

Characters not having been sufficiently mentioned in third-party publications is a valid reason to nominate a fictional character article for deletion. The show the character is a part of having been cancelled is not. And, anyway, All My Children will likely continue on the Internet. I'd think you know that by now, considering your current obsession with nominating All My Children articles for deletion. You act as though you can't simply redirect these articles to List of All My Children characters. When IPs or newbie-ish users revert you, you are supposed to revert them, report them and get the redirect protected. That simple. 110.88.209.200 (talk) 04:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: All articles are notable, include correct information from valued sources and are notable enough to warrant individual articles.Casanova88 (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*UPDATE: Laurel Banning article has been copied to List of All My Children miscellaneous characters; shall we turn that article into a redirect page? --Gh87 (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Agreed: Laurel Banning should be turned into a redirect.Casanova88 (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Gh87 (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Donna Beck has been already copied by someone else to another article; it has turned into a redirect. --Gh87 (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE per policy, the edits were reverted back to normal. --Gh87 (talk) 08:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: None of the characters seem to meet the general notability guideline as stand-alone subjects and the content of their articles is a a plot-only description of a fictional work in all of them. Jfgslo (talk) 07:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the discussion is open and that the articles are unstruck, let's re-consider your arguments before you re-vote. --Gh87 (talk) 08:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the redirects mentioned as being done above have been undone as part of reparing cut-and-paste pavemoves/blanking during the AfD process. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Can't the nominator just withdraw the nomination if he or she has now decided that the articles should be redirected, just like nominations have been withdrawn once notability has been established? 174.137.184.36 (talk) 18:45, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not in this case, no, as there was a !vote advocating deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Merge all as failing WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all articles to List of All My Children miscellaneous characters. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 09:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge and of course redirect. The argument that there isn't coverage enough for stand alone articles is reasonable, though I suspect it will change as the academic world covers this period of television more intensively. The argument that the show is not current, is a misunderstanding of the basic principle of an encyclopedia. WP is NOT a TV GUIDE; a TV guide lists current programs only. An encyclopedia covers the past also. (I agree that merges during the AfD greatly complicate discussion and were not a good idea.) DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - I've said this before and I'll say it again, just because the show has been cancelled, doesn't mean that the characters are no longer relevent. --Nk3play2 ^{my buzz} 22:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: While it doesn't matter if the show is canceled or not, the fact is, the articles do not meet general notability guideline. There aren't any reliable sources or attempts at establishing notability for the characters. Rocksey (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage outside the show's own universe. Per AfD/List of Redwall species, that's evidently not enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 03:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Crown of Poker[edit]

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

Non-standard concept not universally or notably acknowledged. There are different minor poker tournament series, both online and in casinos, that call themselves the Triple Crown of Poker, but that is not what this article is about. 2005 (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. There is no evidence that this is a recognized "triple crown". Arbitrary. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Black Diamond Bay (UK)[edit]

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

The Band has not released two albums, it has not recieved greater media coverage. At present it serves as a link container to iTunes. I nominate this page per failing WP:Notability. --Abracus (talk) 13:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep may not strictly meet notability, but very close. Would seem a bit pointless to delete now merely to put it back up in a month or two.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:BAND "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network". As far as the rest, there are non-trivial mentions of their Leeds&Reading festival exploits and their status as having a popular following among Lithuanians (which is obviously unique for a British band) which, when combined with WP:BAND/11 passes the notabilty test IMHO. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:22, 28 September 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BAND On Radio 1 playlist according to this [68]. I think that should be the end of this discussion.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Romsey Town Rollerbillies[edit]

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

Contested A7 speedy. Article on a roller derby team (not really a league) without any notability. One article in Stars and Stripes is not sufficient, and isn't an independent source, since the team is based on a RAF base and has many army members. The only other sources are articles mentioning that team X will play this team, without any further details on the Romsey Town team[69]. Perhaps a closer look at many of the other roller derby team and league articles is necessary as well, things like Dolly Rockit Rollers or Granite City Roller Girls seem to haev dubious notability as well, but this AfD os for the Romsey Town ones alone. Fram (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I created the article and contested the speedy, although I agree that it might not be notable - I've created a few articles on roller derby leagues recently, and this one had the fewest reliable and independent sources available. The reference mentioned from Stars and Stripes, I would contend, is independent; it has no more link with the league than a regional newspaper based in Cambridge would have. As Fram correctly states, although it is customary within the sport to refer to each organisation as a "league", some only field one team, and few host a substantial league competition between multiple teams. I hope that some discussion here will prompt some consensus on what might make a roller derby league notable. Warofdreams talk 13:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lean delete: The article does not appear to establish why this league is notable: Based on the article, the article does not appear to have competed in any notable competitions. None of the skaters are mentioned as being on a regional or national representative team. The league does not appear to have been important in terms of the greater roller derby scene in the United Kingdom. The league does not appear to have hosted any notable events or competitions. The article does not appear to have any local newspaper or television sources. Examples of this being done, with bouts and skaters helping to make the league appear notable in a roller derby context can be seen in Victorian Roller Derby League, Canberra Roller Derby League, Adelaide Roller Derby, Sun State Roller Derby League. If the article was improved to demonstrate notability, I would support a keep, but at the moment it lacks sources and demonstration of why the league is notable. --LauraHale (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete +1 to Laura, she's quite the derby-pedian. SarahStierch (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and re-review: I'm in a similar situation with Blue Ridge Rollergirls which I recently created, and whatever gets decided about this article should probably be done with that one also. In my case at least, the league has huge local following. Notability covers many areas and I should say that in the case of BRRG, it is their presence in the community that makes them notable, not the scores on their bouts. They have a big presence at charity events, have developed a large "junior" league that has received a lot of press, get involved with political causes, etc. It may be the same with Romsey Town Rollerbillies. I intend to beef up my article as time allows, and my history of followthrough is good. Warofdreams however beats the pants off of me. I'd give him shot to improve without a speedy delete. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If some one could spend a few hours looking through sources and improving the article, then problem fixed. Large local following should show up in a reliable source or two by saying things like "sold out bout" or "five thousand people attended the match." If you can get even a single statement, with a reliable source, in the article, I'd support based on attendance along as being notable. --LauraHale (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For this article, I think that few reliable sources exist. I've managed to locate one article in a local newspaper, but neither that nor the one in Stars and Stripes discusses attendances or activities beyond training, which is definitely problematic. The league has not contributed skaters to any national teams; its most notable feat was probably to be a founder member of the UKRDA. Warofdreams talk 13:32, 3 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} 00:59, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain It is not clear to me whether the various leagues in the United Kingdom Roller Derby Association form a hierarchy or not. If they are all at the same level, then , technically, they're all at the top level of the sport and equally notable. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is not currently any hierarchy, although the UKRDA state on their website that they are planning to introduce some sort of ranking system in future. Warofdreams talk 08:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:16, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting enough that strict application of notability rules is inappropriate.

WP:INTERESTING? Fram (talk) 12:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I'm really unsure of this one. I think it likely that there may be sources out there enough to tip the scales toward keeping it, but I'm not finding them. I would definitely say no prejudice against recreation. Trusilver 20:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This: If sources are found at a later date, or if the press gives it coverage at a later date, no prejudice in recreating. If a member of the league joins the English roster,[70] or rankings were created and the team appeared on it, I would support a recreation of the article with out prejudice. --LauraHale (talk) 20:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I admit I am not familiar with the sport, at least before reading the relevant Wikipedia articles, but I find LauraHale's explanation about what makes for notability in this area extremely reasonable and a suitable guideline. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United Kingdom Roller Derby Association. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of All My Children miscellaneous characters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Brent[edit]

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

I am certain: there are very little or no third-party coverages of this fictional character. Self-published episodes and scripts of the cancelled series All My Children do not help, even if they haven't been cited for years. The whole article looks plagiarized from other third-party websites, unless I'm ignorant or blind. He may not be as notable as Erica Kane and her children; however, this article should have improved for years because he was one of the past characters. Unfortunately, as I already told, no third-party pressings referred this character very much. If any article mentioned articles of the actors, actors who portrayed the same character may be probably more notable than this fictional character himself. ~~--Gh87 (talk) 00:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)~~ I vote delete as well. --Gh87 (talk) 11:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this one is the least notable of the rash of AMC characters in AFD. Also, I concur on the plagiarism suspicions. Ella Plantagenet (talk) 09:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect. Misc. character, sufficiently sourced. Redirect to List of All My Children miscellaneous characters. The fact that the show has been cancelled has no bearing on this discussion. Please note that the television show itself serves as sourcing for fictional character articles, additional sources have been added to the article. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 16:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 03:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mo-Man[edit]

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

A rapper. Has released only on single. No reliable sources in the article or that could be found. He is with the independent label, Nomadic Records. I could find five different Nomadic Records, but couldn't find anything about his label. Prod was contested. Bgwhite (talk) 07:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This ref from the article does seem to be about as RS as it gets. The couple of others from article or from web search are brief mentions from local Romanian sources, apparently driven by producer being from there. The video shows 65,000 hits in Youtube, for whatever that's worth. Maybe after mixtape and/or album are released, he'll blow up, beyond notability threshhold, but don't think he's there yet. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:35, 2 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} 00:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bobcatsss[edit]

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

contested prod. Student symposium. I fail to see how this organisation in any way satisfies our WP:GNG. The article is sourced only to self-published sources, and I see no independent sources upon performance of Gsearches. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find anything reliable. There are routine mentions in a nice selection of European languages, but could anyone identify anything RS in any language? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:52, 2 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} 00:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain The program of individual symposiums is noted and covered by specialized library science journals, see G-Scholar or G-Books result. I found articles (only abstracts available) published by Library Hi Tech News, Forum für Bibliothek und Information, Libreas : Library Ideas, Library Association Record etc. I'm not sure whether it is sufficient to meet our notability requirements (I can't find any substantial information published by mainstream European media), however, it is quite clear that the annual conference is a subject of interest of the academic world. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
very Weak keep The general rule is that student symposia of this sort are not notable, and that to show them notable takes very reliable sources which give some indication of the importance of the symposium in the profession concerned. Examining the relevant material, there are several summaries of the meeting in the UK journal, New Library World & other journals from the same publisher; unfortunately, I think most librarians would not consider them a RS for notability: see the references in Emerald Group Publishing. However, a similar summary has been published in the reputable German journal Bibliothek [71] , and a briefer article in an ALA newsletter International Leads](p.5). [72]. The conferences are at least mentioned in relevant articles in some other good journals:[73] and [74]. I consider this put all together as borderline for notability for student symposia. But in any case the pseudo-criterion of being included in mainstream general interest journals is totally irrelevant to notability in specialized subjects. Using such a "criterion" would result in an abridged not a comprehensive encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 17:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. You'd think librarians would understand tha value of proper references. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of All My Children miscellaneous characters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Rand Chandler[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability of a fictional character of a cancelled soap opera All My Children. It was previously PRODded but contested without a reason. The whole content may appear either an original research or a violation of copyrights from other websites. The matters hasn't eased when the show is cancelled and this character has not returned since 1989. No third-party publications have discussed or referred this character; even references and notabilities of the actresses who portrayed this same character, such as Lauren Holly, is either very insufficient or irrelevent for the article to stand on its own. --Gh87 (talk) 00:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We never delete outright articles on characters from notable TV shows; they are at a minimum redirected, often merged, and here we have two possibilities for characters from this series: List of All My Children characters and List of All My Children miscellaneous characters. Like all the other AMC character articles you listed for deletion, this could have and should have been dealt with through normal editing instead of wasting time at AFD. postdlf (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of All My Children miscellaneous characters. The fact that the show has been cancelled has no bearing on this discussion. Please note that the television show itself serves as sourcing for fictional character articles. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 16:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 03:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Team KNOx[edit]

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

Non-notable racing club that formed a few years ago, I couldn't find not one reliable source that is independent of the subject, which blogs, the college website and the club website isn't it, prod removed for no reason. Wikipedia isn't a place to create articles about your club unless it's considered to meet article guidelines. Delete Secret ^account 01:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The competition itself gets a few GNews hits, but not this particular team. Like the references provided in the article, hits on general Google search are limited to their university or team websites. No evidence of notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:00, 3 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} 00:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible redirect to the competition, but it would be a confusing redirect, imho. A delete seems indicated here. Colon el Tom 10:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:UNIGUIDE. Possibly some info could be included in the IIT Roorkee article if not already done. Lynch 7 13:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Searched on Google News (and archives) and couldn't find anything about this club. No evidence of notability on there whatsoever. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There's clear consensus, with which i ageee. If this list is not unencyclopedic, nothing is. I do agree with a comment below that that main article on the sport is written in non-neutral terms, almost promotional. I may give it some copyediting. But a fork like this isn't the way to deal with it. DGG ( talk ) 22:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paragliding fatalities and injurious incidents[edit]

NOTE: Article was moved to Paragliding fatalities Joefaust (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article and AfD started at the title in the header; they have since been moved to the title in the note above and data below. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article is essentially a non-neutral WP:POVFORK of Paragliding. WP:UNDUE says we shouldn't give a particular issue more prominence than it deserves; here, we're giving prominence to paragliding deaths by giving it a whole article. Currently on Talk:Paragliding involved editors are trying to work out how to include summary information on all paragliding fatalities, and that's all we should include. We do not have articles like this on other sports. I know, WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a good argument, but it helps show why this is a POV-fork and not just an intent to add more information to Wikipedia. Finally, one could also argue that trying to have a massive list of every fatality goes beyond our purpose as described in WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Likewise, the Wikipedia:Deletion policy under the section "Reasons for deletion" suggests "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia". Wikipedia links "not suitable" to Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not which lists "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files" which includes "Mere collections of external links or Internet directories.". I would suggest that's exactly what this page is; a list of external links. 88xxxx (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)— 88xxxx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I find it strange that those in favour of keeping this page seem to be making a general statement that I simply see as untrue. They refer to a page full of links to news articles (which I believe is not allowed in itself) as "data", which it is not. 88xxxx (talk) 07:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consider seeing the citations as citations where the tally is verifiable; such is WP urged. The tally is the data; the citation goes to best known verifiable realm. Joefaust (talk) 00:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nominator and the above say it all. Might even be a borderline A3 case. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What please is an "A3 case"; I could not find what that means. Thanks. Joefaust (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:CSD#Articles CSD A3 is the criteria for speedy deletion on the basis that the article consists of "no content". - Ahunt (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but change name to just "Paragliding fatalities". I do not see POVFORK. What POV is being forked? Above, the "forking" is mentioned, but not what the "fork" is. It seems that paragliding is beginning to have some yet incomplete encyclopedic presentation in WP, but has not yet simply presented the fatalities in the activity. WP does have articles that show the fatalities of defined activities. What good does it do to neglect the simple knowledge of the raw facts of fatalities in an activity?

WP has, just for a small sample:

Imagine WP giving a rich give of Paragliding, but neglects to give the basic data of the fatalities in the activity; that would seem to be a monstrous irresponsible scene. Each fatality raw data point could hold for later researchers in society a kernel of information that might save lives; teachers, instructors, scientific statistical analysts, participant pilots, societal agents, equipment manufacturers, materials scientists, inventors, designers, etc. could benefit from the initial data to produce their interpretations fitting their needs; they would thank WP for being a provider of knowledge that could be studied to get more information. Notice that the intended article is not an interpreter of the fatalities, does not analyze as investigator, does not have a space for judging good, bad, or otherwise. Just tallies and best source of the tally marks. Whereas WP has articles where complete fatalities are recorded of defined activities, even those announcement could be error, as new information might come to those articles that change their tallies; that is the nature of information and knowledge over such broad-based activity. The LINKS matter: They are available for some data points over a hundred links; but those are not collected nor posted; only one or a couple of links that best express the data point is recommended. Such is not against WP guides as I understand it; indeed WP guides seem to demand that high quality links be used to support statements. When some contributor finds an improved source link, then a bump can be made: in better, off not so good source. AS TO EVERYTHING: Because of the nature of the article and its own statement: "incomplete" is the scene, not everything. Doing best possible would be a service to readers. Joefaust (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT:, but change name to just "Paragliding fatalities". Commenting on the challenge of EVERYTHING. Fatalities is not everything. Everything about paragliding would be functionally impossible to put in WP. Even everything about those who died would be functionally impossible to place in WP. Rather the mere death tally is the topic resource barely so others have a bridge to their interests. Prominence deserved? The literature survey shows that fatality question is important to participants and the families of the lost participants; the same literature shows that organizations and manufacturers and sellers of gear are caring about the fatalities. Without life, the activity stops. What does the matter deserve? To be available or not to be available; no interpretive prominence; let the readers decide for themselves what the information means to their lives. Joefaust (talk) 04:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is bad The main article Paragliding is very much both promotional and how-to-do in tone, obviously written by fans, if not salespeople for the manufacturers of the equipment. Sorry if that sounds like "assume bad faith" but that's what the tone of the article says to me. It really makes WP look bad. On the other hand I would normally vote to delete this article since it's just a list of raw data, and obviously also included with a POV purpose, in this case to warn people of dangers barely mentioned in the other article. It would be better to delete this one and put some solid info on fatalities in the other article. But still the problems with the other are far far worse than the existence of this one. Borock (talk) 06:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this statement to be utter hogwash. The main paragliding page does not read as promotional material either for the sport or for particular manufacturers of our equipment. Nowhere in the entire page could I find the name of any brand or equipment manufacturer or references to them, for example. A brief look at the section headings and their contents show the paragliding page to be a well thought out overview of the sport, it tells the reader what it is, how one goes about it, what is involved for participants, what types of equipment are used, etc, etc. It provides a reasonable introduction to those with a general interest in paragliding, or the reader who would like to understand what it is, from the outside looking in, so to speak. 88xxxx (talk) 10:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To User 888xxx. 1. Please refrain from calling good faith notes of fellow contributors here as "simply hogwash", as that kind of attack seems to lower the tone and purpose of this discussion and might be against WP talk-page guide. 2. The article on paragliding lacks considerable amount of topics that may be cured; a very narrow POV about the realm of paragliding is expressed in that article; but such is a matter elsewhere. 3. AS TO the topic of this present discussion, one contributor mentioned a suspicion against WP:NOTMANUAL: I just read:WP:NOTMANUAL. "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal". Well, the article on bare fatalities (forget the injuries, there is a hope by at least two in the discussion) at hand does respect that guide. The article is not a manual, not a guidebook, not a textbook, and not a scientific journal. So, the article can be kept on that point. Joefaust (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your completely right. The comment, however, was complete Nonsense. If I'm not using the approved language for saying that I think someone is talking rubbish please advise how I can do so without offending 3rd parties. 88xxxx (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The contributor gave reasoned on-topic remarks; such manner and way is with sense, not nonsense, even if you disagree with the sense and reasoning.Joefaust (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, I'm at a loss for words. I said: "The comment was complete nonsense". User "joefaust" says "such manner and way is with sense, not nonsense, even if you disagree with the sense and reasoning." Surely, if I disagree with the sense, isn't it rather obvious (literally) that I think it's nonsense? No sense = nonsense? I'm losing the will to live here, it's like dealing with a child. WP admins, please put a stop to this! 88xxxx (talk) 03:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to the main article on paragliding, which fails be of neutral point of view at present, and makes repeated assertions such as "it is accurate to say that paragliding can be a very safe sport" while blaming any injuries or fatalities on "pilot error." "Catastrophic injuries in sports and recreation: causes and prevention" says "Paragliding, if not a dangerous sport, is definitely a most risky one." "A minor misjudgement can be catastrophic." "..of paragliding crashes, 26% resulted in severe injury, and 8% of the pilots suffered fatal injuries." (page 429) "Fundamentals of aerospace medicine" analyzes paragliding accident modes and says (pp 663-664). "Fifty-four percent of the injuries left the pilots with persistent functional disabilities and complaints." This included numerous spinal injuries. Yes, they are mostly due to "pilot error," but they should not be glossed over and minimized. There would be no need for a "content fork" or this stand-aline article if the main article on paragliding were made NPOV rather than the present promotional tone. Edison (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You misquoted above. Your source says "Paragliding, if not a dangerous sport, is most definitely a risky one." rather than "Paragliding, if not a dangerous sport, is definitely a most risky one." (and for some reason cites a hang glider study to support that). Anyway, I don't think anybody involved in the sport would dispute that it is a risk sport. That's why it appears in the extreme_sports template. Jontyla (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The treatment of the dangers of paragliding in WP should be similar to the treatment of danger in other extreme sports (with the possible exception of things like BASE, which is approaching 2 orders of magnitude more dangerous). If this is not respected then WP cannot be said to be neutral on this subject. This article appears to have been created (and Paragliding edited) with the intent of making paragliding seem more dangerous than it is, and more dangerous than other air sports (notably hang gliding, whereas the statistics show the reverse is true). Just for reference, a paraglider pilot has roughly 3 times the risk of being killed in a paragliding accident as they have in being killed in a road traffic accident (I've put the citations and justification for this in a proposition in talk:paragliding). Jontyla (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)— Jontyla (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

COMMENT: On matters just mentioned by Jontyla: Notice that you made an exception for BASE jumping; and a statement that was firm about orders of magnitude; citation is requested. On neutrality: it may be appropriate to clean up lacks in other articles; lacks in other articles do not logically force non-neutrality when an article is neutral and appropriate; going to possible immature articles for models does not seem helpful when WP is after building mature good articles. On the "making ...seem" guess, such does not apply to my contributions; I have good faith to neutrally show the fatalities of a sector of sport paragliding according to WP guides of verifiable knowledge and reference to best known level without excess; each contributor will be called to do similarly. The statements you just made has me feel like you have all the advanced statistical analysis conclusions over the matter; including those results with good citation is something to look for in your contributions. I wonder if the statisticians had available the worldwide sport paragliding fatalities as their starting point. I await your contributions along these lines. Keep, not merge; link from a sub-section Paragliding (sport), and and also link from a sport sub-section in Paragliding to such. Your car statement are interesting; good citations would be more interesting; I cannot take the matter just at the writing of the numbers. Joefaust (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

to JoeFaust: Citation for base jump stats? Try Base_jump#Fatalities. As for the PG and HG numbers, as I said above, I included citations in the proposal I made in talk:paragliding. Jontyla (talk) 00:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Jontyla states "the statistics show the reverse is true" but there are no statistics presented on the page being discussed - only an incomplete list. It is not rational to make an argument using statistics vs. a tally, either here, or on Wikipedia Paragliding, where it is done extensively, or throughout the paragliding universe. A serious problem with the so-called statistics being presented by the paragliding enthusiasts in this argument and elsewhere is that a proper basis to create valid statistics does not exist for paragliding so any claims made in regard to such statistics are a fiction. For instance, to derive a ratio of fatalities per 1000 participants it is necessary to know how many participants are flying paragliders and how many participants have been reported killed. Determining the number of participants is extremely difficult, both nationally and globally, because there is no mechanism in place to reduce the annual total of experienced pilots and students reported by the training schools, where such numbers are sometimes reported, by the number of students and pilots who quit or are injured or killed. To complicate matters further, the number of paragliders actually flying is unknown because the usable life of a paraglider is shorter than all other aircraft, causing them to be retired, and most manufacturers have not released production numbers. Worse, the collection of fatalities and accidents is not conducted in a responsible manner by the sporting organizations. They often collect only the fatalities and injuries reported (and many go unreported) within their own country among their own countrymen, leaving other distant parties with the responsibility to report or fail to report incidents suffered by visitors, which are often the larger segment. This chronic under-reporting has been used to the advantage of paragliding enthusiasts in their safety arguments for many years. It was only when an individual from outside paragliding took it upon himself to publish referenced reports of fatalities and injuries that it was demonstrated that the safety argument for paragliding was fabricated. His argument and his list are here http://www.cometclones.com/mythology2011.htm . I bring this to the attention of Wikipedia editors and administrators not to hope it will be included in a topic, for which it is admittedly inappropriate, but rather to warn them that they are being played on this page by Paragliding Forum members with thousands of highly opinionated posts in their history which have attempted to demonize, ridicule and minimize any mention of possible problems with paragliders or excessive accident rates. Nopara (talk) 02:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To Nopara: I said the citations were in a proposal I'd made on the talk page to update the (locked) page, not the page itself. I've now added a subject heading so than it can be referenced directly; Proposed_Change, thought since you have already commented on it you have presumably already read it.

As to your arguments about the French statistics being invalid, they do not hold water. The suggestion that they should include non FFVL members is a bad one. The whole point of their usefulness is that they compare a known population (FFVL members) against the death rate within that population, thus giving a good index of the risk. If deaths of people outside that population were added it would degrade the statistical validity.

Your suggestion that the FFVL artificially inflate the population by including everyone who has ever flown PGs has at least the merit of not being logically false, though unfortunately for your arguments it is factually false. The FFVL uses its current membership list; that is everyone who has shelled out the €74 for that years membership, which should mean that there are relatively few who are no longer in the sport - not enought to seriously effect the stats.

Your suggestion that deaths are not reported to the FFVL is probably false. The police investigate all such deaths on French soil and I believe (though I'm not certain) that the FFVL, as the recognised controlling body of the sport, will automatically receive copies of those reports. FFVL officers will typically be directly involved in the investigation and in any case there is a culture of reporting major accidents to the governing body to help in identifying and correcting emerging dangerous trends. The FFVL includes in its statistics accidents of its members which occur outside France, and in any case most French pilots do most of their flying in their home country (which is not true for some other nations).

My statement that this data supports the premise that HG is more dangerous than PG is, contrary to what you say, supported by the study I cited, though only weakly due to the very low numbers. Going to the same source for data for the three years 2006-2008 show 3+1+1=5 deaths from HG and 8+8+10=26 deaths from PG, but there are 21 times as many PG pilots as HG pilots in the FFLV. That means even excluding the 'black' year for HG of 2006 HG is more than twice as dangerous as PG, and taking all three years into account it's around 4 times as dangerous.

You state "It is not rational to make an argument using statistics vs. a tally". This statement suggesting that a tally or list of accidents is more useful than statistical data beggars belief by its lack of understanding.

Jontyla (talk) 14:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and as a result provides virtually no useful information for the reader. Non-encyclopedic article. - Ahunt (talk) 23:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: The citation give information on target; best known citations for a death in a subject activity is strong information at such level. Very encyclopedic; with such knowledge a host of types of readers will have the potential to derive benefits for the sport, its participants, and the society that embeds the sport. Joefaust (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Actually a large number of the refs cited in the article are forums and other sources that fail WP:RS and especially WP:SPS. It makes the whole list of little value even if the list were not WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The subject of paragliding safety is worthwhile. Personally I quit flying paragliders after just about everyone I know, including my instructor, had been killed flying them, but this needs to be a section in Paragliding that cites data and reports from reliable sources, not an indiscriminate list like this made up mostly from non-reliable sources. - Ahunt (talk) 12:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: I just was noticed by someone here in a post remark that one is to post the word "KEEP" as prefix just once, while prefixing other comments with COMMENT. Accepted. But WP says this process is not a vote process, if I read correctly, but a consensus of advance wikipedians after a reasonable display of struggle over WP guides and policies. In any case who will correct the excessive "votes"; we each could clean our prefixed position. Joefaust (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: If there is any move to "vote" then I ask politely that Jontyla place a full disclosure of all the posts that are occurring at his forum that he mentioned that may go against the WP:CANVASS. I do not the appropriate avenue for you to disclose such to WP admin; is it here? Such might be affecting this work. Joefaust (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"my forum"? I don't run any forums nor am I an admin or moderator on any. If you are referring to paraglidingforum.com, of which I am an ordinary member (as is JoeFaust), then another forum member posted a topic about these discussions, I posted a reply saying, in effect, if you have a view then contribute but don't all pile in and swamp the discussion. At the suggestion of a third forum member I added a reply suggesting that the moderators hide the topic, with which the original poster concurred, and which I believe has been done. Whether I should have supported hiding or not is a good question. Many PGF members would likely be interested in these discussions, are knowledgeable about the subject and would probably wish to contribute. In addition it would show quite how fringe the views of Joe and NoPara are. However, PGF (being far and away the major online discussion group for PG related subjects) has over 20,000 members and many hundreds of highly active posters, so the result might have been chaotic. For reference, I know of three PGF members posting here, myself, 88xxxx and JoeFaust. Jontyla (talk) 00:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - completely fails WP:NOTLINK: "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files", "Mere collections of external links or Internet directories.". Non-encyclopedic article. End of. 88xxxx (talk) 23:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: This was already brought up. A citation per person's death is not a "mere" collection; the article is not even close to being a directory. The article is of a type that one could hardly be less effective to fulfill the making of a knowledge bridge to a chance to make the world better on the matter of concern; do not let the sportsperson's experience in the sport go unreviewed by people that may advance the sport by virtue of WP's gift of knowledge.Joefaust (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: About the WP:NOTLINK matter. I am under the understanding the citations with links in them are treated different from sets of links that are not citations. The article as started has only citations for the tally marks; the tally mark is the content that is cited. Differently would be just putting a list of links in say "External Links" or "See Also". WP rather requires that the content matter of articles be cited. The article could expand to prose: John Doe in Country at Date crashed and died reportedly from the crash at Site. Citation. Or refraining from such: place a tally content and cite; let the reader see the tallies and totals per year; if they want more or need more, they go to the citation source. Which way would be best? The prose short remarks or the tally by nation? Joefaust (talk) 00:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be WP:OR on paragliding fatalities. A lot of the source material is web forums and other dubious sources. If we can find actual statistics published by reliable groups, that might be more reasonable, but a country-by-country breakdown is obviously WP:INDISCRIMINATE. A basic summary of "number of casualties" in a line or two could be merged, but that information isn't in these sources, and adding up all the data from a huge variety of sources that might have different methodologies or classifications is clearly original research. SDY (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT in support of article. * The proposal that there might be a reliable resource for worldwide "statistics" over the fatalities just may be answered only in some far future time. Yet the best source of the fatalities just might be those sources that name the deceased pilots. Those speculative future agents will have the knowledge that WP could present in the article; they would thank WP for providing the knowledge over which they might work their statistical analysis. A best citation per human being that died in a specified sport sector seems to be the least note that an encyclopedia could give in these days of digital access. Click and one gets to best-yet source. WP may be bold and not have to wait for some future agent. FAI is not doing the job. No one national org in paragliding/hang-gliding appears to be doing the job of worldwide presentation of the fatalities and best click-to information. The article carves out a defined sector, faces that sector, and gives best-yet source for the tally marks. Either directly link to the best-performing researcher on the matter or do as the article does: fatality cited to best known source of information. Easing prose could be added: "Known so far are ### fatalities in Nation in 2005" etc. The best known research source for the subject holds the raw sourced material of fatalities AND holds his theories; the theories are being contested and examined in the sport; those who disagree with his theories and those theories themselves are separate from the singularly best collection of fatalities and citations for those fatalities. A Paragliding (sport) article or section in another article that neglected best resource just to carry out an avoidance of that resource's theories would neglect giving readers the best-yet bridge to the fatalities. WP could serve in one or several articles. The present discussion faces an article that would give just focus on the fatalities sans linking to just the site of that researcher. Should FAI or some other researcher presents, will they give link to best-yet information about each fatality yet known? WP could be with this article now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joefaust (talk • contribs)

It's still raw data without any interpretation from a reliable secondary source. We could nominallycome up with our own interpretation, but that's also not what we do here. SDY (talk) 20:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on grounds of OR - the numbers have been created by finding accidents and enumerating them, which means that methodology is suspect. I note that while its seems to be indiscriminate on one hand, on the other, it omits most nations of the world and limits itself to a period of only four years. The topic of safety should be covered in the main article in the first place - and spun off only when the usual spin-off circumstances dictate.GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some apparent fans of paragliding have disparaged the data on injuries and deaths as being unreliably sourced, from "web forums" and the like. Please do not misrepresent sources. I cited above a book published by a university press, and a medical textbook, both clearly reliable sources. The reliable sources do not have to be cited in the article for an article to be kept, they only have to exist. It's always fun to see the single purpose accounts popping up at AFD. Edison (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT and NOTICE: Editor 88xxxx in this discussion group has started an article that has been moved to a name close to his start: Hang gliding fatalities As yet the contents seems identical to the article we are here discussing in AfD, so it seems appropriate for one of us to mention this other article's start, as perhaps such new article would come under the same scrutiny as we presently have going. I have done some following editing in that new article in an attempt to incorporate some of the guides learned in the article we hereon are discussing. The starting of that article went against the WP guide: "AfD participants should not circumvent consensus by merging or copying material to another article unilaterally, before the debate closes." Joefaust (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC) Joefaust (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that there was a Hang gliding fatalities page, but it was deleted by request of the original author (G7). If, as you say, that page had content identical to this page, then perhaps he agreed with you (and the many other users above) in that it broke WP Guidelines and deleted it. As original author of this Paragliding fatalities page, I would urge you to do the same. 88xxxx (talk) 02:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G7 could give his or her own reason why the deletion was made. I saw the content and to me it seemed that it was a copy-paste of all the citations in the Paragliding fatalities article; I edited the intro before the deletion by the starter; I edited the intro to fit the citations in the body; just maybe the G7 account saw that the copy-paste from another article broke some WP policy. Who knows? Putting up your guesses is fine, but it does not tell us the rationale of the G7. Was G7 you 88xxx?

Hang gliding fatalities involving hang gliders with TCF was started to complement the Paragliding fatalities article; together they cover almost all forms of hang glider machines with no overlap when one respect the current introductions as of this moment.

This page should be deleted, of this I have little doubt. There are simply too many ways it breaks the WP rules for it to stay. Should the WP admins decide, for whatever reason, not to delete it then we need to propose that this page be renamed Hang gliding fatalities involving hang gliders without TCF if we wish to be accurate. I just thought we should take note of this now lest we forget, although I am confident we will all be spared this time consuming exercise when the admins do indeed delete this page. 88xxxx (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has no real content and it is not really an article on fatalaties just some out of context statistics created by original random research. An explantion of the safety record could be made in a couple of sentences in the main paragliding article but nothing here worth keeping. MilborneOne (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's just a list of links, and it's axe-grinding.Manormadman (talk) 20:11, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I started this entire controversy in April or early May of 2010. I believed then, as I do now, that to present such a happy face on safety in paragliding when faced with such a large list of fatalities was unethical. Wikipedia editors were asking for citations. I provided them. It is particularly appropriate to provide the other side of an issue when NPOV is lacking. A high level discussion about how to correctly present references could well be in order, but arbitrary deletion of all references and changes without discussion from May 2010 forward is a political action which has no place in Wikipedia. When the fatality list for 2009 was arbitrarily deleted without discussion, I posted this on May 19, 2010:

>I am aware that the paragliding community does not wish to allow a fully cited paragliding fatality list to be published on their Wikipedia Paragliding How-To as it exposes the pervasive myth of paragliding safety. The associated, cited reference to the official British Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association observation that SIV training is counterproductive was also removed (without comment), apparently to preserve the likewise pervasive myth that training and skill make a difference. As the removed fatality list clearly illustrates, sudden collapses and uncontrolable, nose-down spiral dives continue to kill pilots across all skill levels, including the very best, the most famous and most accomplished. The list itself stood for 19 days. I find it curious that the Wikipedia UberEditors state, under the Safety heading, "This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (August 2009)" Over 100 citations were removed, along with the fatality list and BHGA reference. This is perhaps a sad commentary on the Wikipedia universe. Or perhaps the truth will come to light. To me, the most important aspect of any sport is the fatality list. The term "sport" implies a significance of skill level. But in paragliding, the ugly fact that half the people getting killed are getting killed by the failure of their equipment is being kept hidden. I realize that I am not pursuing this agressively enough to do justice to the Wikipedia vision but I must admit, I posted the list primarily for my own verification: to see how long it would stand. Now I have the list but the readers of Wikipedia don't.Nopara (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)< The verification to which I refer was an investigation of Paragliding Forum members seeking out web discussions and arguing ad infinitum against any information that presented paragliding in a bad light, regardless of truth. Nopara (talk) 06:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it the list you are referring to exists on the private "cometclones" website. This seems the perfect place for a list of uncited news articles related to paragliding deaths. Not in an encyclopedia. 88xxxx (talk) 08:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:Nopara - as a former paragliding pilot I happen to agree with what you have said here, even the most experienced pilots get killed flying paragliders because of inherent problems with the nature of the craft itself. There should be a treatment of the safety issues in Wikipedia. That said, this article we are discussing here is not the way to to do it. Even it it were complete it would still tell readers virtually nothing beyond raw numbers. What is needed is a proper section within the Paragliding article that cites at least several safety studies of fatalities and that shows cause factors, all properly referenced to reliable refs. - Ahunt (talk) 11:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ahunt - As an active paraglider pilot for the last 25 years I have been to three funerals of paragliding friends - two died of cancer and only one died paragliding (as it happens doing something really dumb, aerobatics near the ground). I agree with you that even experienced pilots get killed, but this is true of all air sports I believe. Very often they are killed by complacency. It's interesting that your personal experience has led you to agree about the dangers of paragliding (was this some time ago? Things have changed a lot since the early days). Statistically speaking, nowadays it appears to be significantly safer (on an annualised basis, as far as fatalities go) than general aviation (which I believe you are involved in). This came as quite a surprise to me. However, don't get me wrong, I don't consider paragliding as safe, it's just that many other common things are nearly as, or more, dangerous, but we tend not to focus on the dangers. When you are reflecting on what would be an appropriate piece about safety in the paragliding article, I would suggest that you also consider that same structure in general aviation and other adventure sports pages, since what is appropriate for paragliding is also appropriate there. Jontyla (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not that it is really all that relevant to this deletion discussion, I was paragliding between 1991 and 1998. My instructor was killed paragliding as were about another half dozen or so people I knew or admired in the sport. I quit in the end because I worked for a helicopter company that regularly carried paraglider pilots to mountain launches and had a lot of exposure to the sport, with some of its pilots and lodge managers involved in paragliding. After a number accidents involving employees the company forbade any of its employees from paragliding anymore. To the point though I agree that all air sports/recreational flying articles here need to discuss safety, but as I noted above they need to do this by citing studies and their conclusions, not by attempting to list accidents and drawing their own conclusions. While not perfect the section Homebuilt_aircraft#Safety is an example of this sort of approach. - Ahunt (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've been proposing something roughly equivalent for the paragliding page Talk:Paragliding#Proposed_Change. If you feel like taking a look then your input would be welcome (if you've got the time and energy then you could contribute to Talk:Paragliding#Revert_to_prior_version too). Jontyla (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Changing the name of a bad article does not make it a good one, re-write or be deleted!Petebutt (talk) 06:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Keep this note lowest: NOTE: Article was moved to Paragliding fatalities Joefaust (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but reorganise into some sort of sane table or something. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a too highly detailed list of essentially nonnotable facts, better suited for a paragliding safety website. also, Category:Deaths by hang gliding doesnt have any articles other than this and its cousin, same with Category:Deaths by paragliding. all 4 items dont amount to an article, only a subsection in the articles on the sport.(i tried to CFD these, i think i failed at it)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 03:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

European-Latin American Technology Platforms[edit]

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

PROD declined without asserting notability. Concern = Non notable organisation, and advertising or promotion. (WP:ORG and WP:ADVERT) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Few hits at all, none WP:RS that I can see. It seems as though EU might actually be spending a fair chunk of cash on this, so perhaps there exist RS's, but can't assume this. Would help if article were less in bureaucratese. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Speedy Little/nothing in the way of sources (all seem to be primary); article reads like an advert for the project. Not Enyclopaedic yet as a subject - may become that way in a year's time? Sources may be available then. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hempilation, Vol. 2: Free the Weed[edit]

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

not notable, or well written Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 16:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Somewhat to my surprise (I guess I haven't read enough issues of High Times) I find that there are some references to this album in reliable sources, notably a detailed 1998 CNN article entitled "Singing the praises of pot on 'Hempilation 2'". The GNews search shows a number of other references to this album, but more of them seem to focus more on its predecessor, Hempilation: Freedom Is NORML, so maybe a good editing result would be to merge this topic as a new section of the existing article about the first album. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...now I'm considering withdrawal for a week or so... if the article gets better. The main problem is it is not written well, and no refrencing. Should have proded it. Bar Code Symmetry (Talk) 00:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. I added a couple of links to album reviews and an explanatory note, and put the track listings into their own section. Not really sure if it merits its own freestanding page, or merger into the first compilation's page--certainly many or all of the artists on the record are notable: Willie Nelson, Dar Williams, George Clinton, etc. Page was only created 9/30, so it might be nice to give the original author a chance to build it up a bit more. Either way, I'm willing to move contents over if "merge" is the decision, but only if that's the decision. Can anyone tell me what normal procedure is in that case? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 00:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Album features original contributions by notable artists including Everything, George Clinton, Willie Nelson, Fun Lovin' Criminals, Long Beach Dub Allstars, Jimmie's Chicken Shack, Gov't Mule and Letters To Cleo and is covered by reliable sources WTF (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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