The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qoph (band)[edit]

Qoph (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

claims of notability ("pioneers") are not supported by references provided. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Not clear how this might meet WP:BAND RadioFan (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Two of the band's albums were on labels that appear significant to pass WP:BAND (Transubstans/Record Heaven) and despite issues around searching for non-English sources, I found coverage from Allmusic ([1], [2]), Zero magazine ([3]), and Svenska Dagbladet ([4]). I would be amazed if there wasn't further coverage in Swedish newspapers and magazines. --Michig (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while bands signed to independent labels can meet WP:BAND but the guidelines insist on "important indie labels" . None of the labels mentioned have Wikipedia articles and mentions of them generally describe them as boutique labels, rather than the roster of notable performers mentioned in WP:BAND Also finding it a bit odd to have so many labels listed for so few albums. Why is this? --RadioFan (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The band is well known in progressive rock and psychedelic rock communities. For example the band is listed in the Jerry Lucky's encyclopedias: "The Progressive Rock files" ([5]) and The Psychedelic Rock Files ([6]).

The label Disk Union ([7]), ([8]) is a major Japanese record company.

• Comment Bickerstaff1 (talk) 11:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there something other than links to the company's website to demonstrate these are notable labels?--RadioFan (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Disk Union have released acts like Bigelf [9] and [10] (both included in Wikipedia) on their sublabel Archangelo, for example http://rateyourmusic.com/label/arcangelo/ ([11]). Transubstans Records have released in Sweden very well known band Abramis Brama ([12]) among others. [13]). I can't see no point why Qoph shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. They have released three full length albums in Germany, Japan and Sweden and have a worldwide distribution, have performed at international festivals etc. Bickerstaff1 (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Michig's sources. There's also a write-up at MusicMight [14]. 86.44.25.145 (talk) 04:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is no such thing as "delete and merge", people. Our copyright licences do not permit it. Merger is a form of keep. Read our Project:Guide to deletion. Vic49, stop renominating this article when the outcome that you want is not deletion and doesn't involve administrators using the deletion tool in any way. If you want an editorial action enacted after your previous nomination, use your own edit tools yourself, and use the article's talk page. AFD is not a club to beat other people with into doing something that you are perfectly capable of doing but unwilling to actually do yourself. Uncle G (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Lubrano[edit]

Joseph Lubrano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Lubrano is not a notable criminal and does not pass WP:CRIME. Lubrano should not be the subject of his own article. Information about Lubrano and his crimes could be added to the List of Lucchese crime family mobsters article. Vic49 (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vic49 (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Shouldn't this actually be some sort of merge discussion? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 00:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Its going to be discussed here if the article should be deleted, merged or kept. I suggest that article be deleted and the information about Lubrano be merged into the above article.--Vic49 (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per WP:KEEP #1: all contributions including the proposer have argued for a merge. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge per nom Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pretty borderline though; I can see another AFD in this article's future if it isn't improved. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Punk Bunny[edit]

Punk Bunny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Possibly not notable largely unreferenced article about a amateur singer which we don't really need on wikipedia. Rcsprinter (shout) @ 23:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article needs work, but Punk Bunny have been mentioned in several publications: the article has a mix of references, some reliable sources, some not. I'm not sure why the proposer claims he's "amateur" since the evidence of Punk Bunny performing for money is plentiful. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes both WP:GNG and WP:BAND. --Michig (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Although I'd have loved to have not seen the infobox's image (cropping it about an inch higher would be great), looking online and at the references in the article I do think it meets the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO, although not by any flying colors. - SudoGhost 17:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I discovered the page is a direct copypaste from the guy's website, so it looks like this is going to be delete anyway. Rcsprinter (state the obvious) @ 18:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article to remove the text that violated copyright. We have more work to do to build the article up now but it's still a keep. --Michig (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Icon of Sin[edit]

Icon of Sin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This metalcore band fails WP:N and likely WP:BAND. Google Books is not providing any coverage, and Google News archive searches are only providing passing mentions in Metalhead.ro, which is a Wikipedia blacklisted site. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't find any coverage that would show that the guidleines for inclusion are met. Fails WP:BAND. — sparklism ^hey! 16:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet WP:BAND. Plaintive plaintiff (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) -- Cheers, Riley 00:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel O'Brien (comedian)[edit]

Daniel O'Brien (comedian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable, mentioned only in youtube, blogs, and articles written for site or other parts of site. Soxwon (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: O'Brien is a major contributor at the notable Cracked.com. A cursory search reveals significant coverage at Forbes, The Huffington Post and ESPN. Faustus37 (talk) 07:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you had bothered to look at the sources, you would notice that HP was an interview of Michael Swaim and the ESPN source was a short two-question interview for Page 2 with Swaim (with Swaim answering one of the questions). The only one that would qualify as significant coverage would be Forbes, if you stipped out the non-notable coverage you wouldn't have an article. He's famous at Cracked.com, but has little in the way of notable coverage. Soxwon (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the HP article is indeed an interview of Swaim, O'Brien is mentioned repeatedly and in a non-trivial way. The ESPN article reveals O'Brien is a Streamy Award recipient, which gives him claim to WP:CREATIVE#4 Faustus37 (talk) 11:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Faustus37 (talk) 07:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Ample coverage of him at Forbes [15]. He clearly passes WP:ENTERTAINER #1 and #2, as his episodes and other work are seen by millions. Also WP:CREATIVE #4 since his work has "won significant critical attention". Dream Focus 10:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Streamy represents significant critical coverage? I would be willing to admit #2 for WP:ENTERTAINER (though whether that qualifies for an article is another debate), but #1 (Obsessive Pop Culture Disorder, After Hours, and Agents of Cracked are hardly notable productions) and especially #4 are stretching it. Soxwon (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you admit we have a case for WP:ENTERTAINER#2, then notability is sufficiently established. Faustus37 (talk) 11:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Creative 4, his work does get significant attention and mention from the critics. Entertainment 1 "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." He has in fact had a significant role in these shows, which are notable because of the coverage they get. Dream Focus 13:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, ample coverage across multiple different noteworthy secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A single Forbes piece and a two question interview shared with Swaim by ESPN Page two qualify as multiple noteworthy secondary sources? Soxwon (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the above. I understand that the coverage is minimal, but that plus the award is (barely!) sufficient in my book. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not the most notable individual, and without the Forbes piece I'd say delete, but with that I'd say he falls just on the other side of significant coverage, although not by any great leaps and bounds. - SudoGhost 17:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think there was consensus enough that this could have remained closed. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 01:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Go Phightins! 23:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Wong (writer)[edit]

David Wong (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Known only by movie and book, suggest merging this article into John Dies at the End Soxwon (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete not notable. David Wong is not even this person's name. The book is not notable, and the "movie" is an online web-serial. This person is an admin/mod on two websites, and that is the limit of notability. Wikipedia is not a Fanzine. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you are confused. The movie will be released in theaters on January 25, 2013 See:Magnet buys 'John Dies at the End' -- Esemono (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Ample coverage of him on multiple reliable sources. He clearly passes WP:ENTERTAINER #1 and #2, as his episodes and other work are seen by millions. Also WP:CREATIVE #4 since his work has "won significant critical attention". -- Esemono (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it helps to actually read the secondary sources you are talking about his book. The rest are blogs, youtube vids, cracked articles etc. Again, as with DOB, WP:CREATIVE and #1 for WP:ENTERTAINER fail, you need to come up with better arguments. Soxwon (talk) 04:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The subject surely passes WP:AUTHOR #3 and #4 as his work "has been the subject of a... feature-length film", received "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" and "has won significant critical attention". The same references of the article include many secondary reliable sources. I don't see where is the problem here, and the same nominator fails to give a valid reason for deletion (as "known only by movie and book" surely is not). Cavarrone (talk) 07:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? WP:AUTHOR #4? Are you high? #4 is for works in famous galleries or famous anthologies, Wong's book fails MISERABLY. #3 is iffy, and right on the borderline. Soxwon (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wong's latest book is currently on the New York Times best seller list? How is that a fail? -- Esemono (talk) 04:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If the WP:AUTHOR criterium was intended just for "famous galleries or famous anthologies", it was written so. About the "tiffy" argument, recently there was an attempt to tighten up the third criterium and clearly failed to raise consensus from the community. Finally, please be civil and edit with your username, as everyone has understood who you are. Cavarrone (talk) 05:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Who is it? I hope you don't think the IP editor is me just because I'm the only other person who wants to delete. Besides I have to admit that some of these arguments are swaying me over. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that Wong's book was not anywhere close to being in the category of book being described. It is not a lauded, notable book to the point where it would be considered a part of anthologies or of that level of notability. Soxwon (talk) 01:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW there is no guideline for best seller status, it should not be used to judge notability. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 09:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.His book was on the New York Times Best seller list (Book Review Desk, 21 October 2012, The New York Times p 26)

Also article from the Chicago Daily Herald ( "David Wong returns in intriguing 'This Book is Full of Spiders'" Associated Press, 12 October 2012 Chicago Daily Herald)Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: George Sand is not a real name, either. In any event, Wong has written two well-reviewed books (the other being This Book Is Full of Spiders: Seriously, Dude, Don't Touch It). A clear pass of WP:AUTHOR#3. Faustus37 (talk) 11:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't need to be high to point out his anthology for Cracked.com is a New York Times Bestseller. [16] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocketsteam100 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - Having a book on the NYtimes list is notable enough. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 22:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. There is no rule for best seller status. There was an attempt to add it into the guidelines and it did not get consensus. Best seller status should not be used when judging notability of books/authors. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 09:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wong wrote a book which is being adapted to a movie, a sequel to that book, manages a very popular website and forums, and writes numerous articles read by thousands. How is this man not notable? Because he's on the internet and uses a pseudonym? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.161.188 (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rocketsteam100's proposal to rewrite the article and incorporate the sources raised here is a sensible one; if after that the article still seems lacking, another AFD nomination can be made. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gladstone (humorist)[edit]

Gladstone (humorist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable, most links are from blogs, youtube, and articles/shows written by subject or from website subject writes for. Soxwon (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable internet poster, no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Is notable per WP:Entertainer #3, has a cult following of 15 thousand followers on twitter [17]. Also has been featured on the Digg Reel, NPR, and the Huffington Post.[18][19][20]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.145.48 (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If notability is determined by 15,000 Twitter followers, Wikipedia would need to create thousands more articles. The Huffington Post link you provided is hardly being "featured," it's merely a link to one of his articles- and it doesn't even mention Gladstone by name. The Zulkey interview is better coverage but is still not enough to claim notability. The YouTube clip is also not nearly enough to assert notability. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Much like his contemporary Seanbaby -- who I see you failed to nominate for an AfD -- Gladstone is featured on multiple popular sites (Comedy Central in addition to Cracked). You have WP:ENTERTAINER#2 right there. Faustus37 (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You're going to have to post some independent coverage, and not links to sites he has contributed to. Thanks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's see. There's this from Daily Kos [21], and this from AOL [22], and this from WBEZ in Chicago [23]. Not to mention what should be the self-evident cult following based on hits on Cracked and other places. Such is the paradox of many creative professionals: They're notable because notable media outlets make them so, but said media outlets don't prove notability ... *sigh* We really must fix that. Oh No! It's Faustus37! it is what it is - speak at the tone 01:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned above that the WBEZ article is the closest thing to significant coverage. Nonetheless, the other articles are just links to his videos/posts, not significant coverage. Nothing on Wikipedia is "self-evident"; notability and a cult following must be verified by reliable sources. The sum of links provided does not sufficiently establish notability. -- Wikipedical (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Faustus37 (talk) 00:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Those links posted above are independant coverage. Zulkey is an NPR run blog, in addition to WBEZ, he's been featured on WNFZ many times and he was also a guest speaker at the Edmonton Expo. [24][25] He's also been featured on Holy Taco. I'm also curious as to what satisfies a "cult" gathering at wikipedia. I say this because in regards to his twitter, I found 4 different people with less followers all of whom have wiki articles (Michael Mosley, Anna Camp, David Wong, Claire Zulkey) This establishes precedent, unless you want those people to be removed as well. On a side note, a cursory glance reveals that the poster that initiates this AFD has started ones on two other editors for Cracked.com in the past few days. I'm sensing a vendetta here, but that's not relevant. Rocketsteam

Zulkey is affiliated with NPR? Why, so she is! Twitter notwithstanding, why do we blithely dismiss significant content producers associated with uncontroversially notable media sources ... just because? Say someone like Bob Costas or Tom Brokaw had no significant coverage outside of NBC. By current rules they'd be non-notable. There's something profoundly wrong with that. Oh No! It's Faustus37! it is what it is - speak at the tone 04:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Costas and Brokaw- that's a completely hypothetical argument because they do have significant coverage in reliable sources. AfD is a place to enforce Wikipedia policy, not challenge it. Take that discussion to Wikipedia talk:Notability. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:ENTERTAINER #2 Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. He has ample things on cracked that get from 300 thousand to up to one and a half million views. So yeah, that's a large fan base already. Dream Focus 16:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, the main determination for notability is significant coverage in independent reliable sources, which this writer does not have. Anyway, the "cult following" line in WP:ENTERTAINER does not refer to page views. By that logic, thousands and thousands of clearly non-notable web content producers would be notable including people who post kitten videos and get millions of hits. There needs to be more significant coverage than one interview on an NPR-affiliated blog. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • A large fan base OR a significant "cult" following. You don't need both. A fan base means people go to see your work, not just one thing, but a series of things you created. Someone who has dozens of things created which get a large number of fans to keep going to them, is clearly a notable entertainer. Dream Focus 20:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would point out that while that's true, the fan base/cult following criteria do not prove nor prove against notability, as WP:ENTERTAINER is part of the Notability page's additional criteria. The main criteria is independent significant coverage in reliable sources, which has not been established. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • • No, that's not how it works. WP:NOTABILITY clearly explains at the top, it is notable if it passes the general notability guidelines by getting coverage in reliable sources, OR if it passes any of the subject specific guidelines. It doesn't have to do both, otherwise the subject specific guidelines wouldn't exist. Dream Focus 13:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes and it also says people meeting the subject-specific guidelines are not automatically notable. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Notability I have already quoted. If they meet any of those guidelines, that are presumed notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 17:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe you may be mis-interpreting Wikipedia:Notability, or there is a contradiction in the rules. I have opened a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Rules_contradiction to clarify. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Every article absolutely needs to have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. A large Twitter following or large page views does not alone satisfy notability requirements. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What source is used to arrive at the 300,000 to 1 million page views? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link provided to his stuff on cracked. [26] Primary sources are fine for things like this if no legitimate reason to doubt them. Dream Focus 17:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is of course in his best interest to appear popular, self-reported popularity is thus not reliable and essentially a form of marketing - we have no way to verify if those numbers are real. Further, web hits as a metric are almost meaningless as they include bots and could include page views vs. unique-user views, or could include repeat visitor views. It's really not a reliable source, nor a reliable metric of popularity. I'm sure there have been conversations about this in the past on Wikipedia, and reason why page views are not included in the Notability guidelines. There is Alexa.com for ranking websites, it includes cracked.com but nothing specific for Gladstone. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:42 (a summary of the rule): multiple independent reliable sources that cover the subject in depth. Many people above are confusing things by Gladstone with things about Gladstone. The only source that really passes is the WBEZ interview, and that isn't particularly strong on its own. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 09:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  That's just a personal essay which is mislabeled to look official. The guideline page of WP:Notability is what we go by. Dream Focus 14:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I made it clear it is a summary of the rule, and what the rule is. 42 is not "mislabeled" to be "official". The reason I used 42 here is because so many people in this discussion seem to be confused about the core principal of notability which 42 is particularly effective at communicating in a short and easy to understand way. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It is labeled as an "information page" instead of an essay. And it has incorrect and very misleading information. Use the guideline page as well. Its very clear, GNG or one of the SSG, is fine, you not needing both. Dream Focus 16:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Actually, you do need both. If the additional criteria is challenged, you need the GNG to show notability. The very same guideline that contains WP:ENT also says that "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.". So as far as I can tell, you do need the GNG as well. Bjelleklang - talk 20:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You have never needed both. The WP:NOTABILITY guideline is quite clear. And they say "presumed" there, and likely at other places, and whatnot. They don't like to be definite on anything since guidelines are suggestions, not absolute law like policies are. Dream Focus 20:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The additional criteria in WP:BIO, including WP:ENT doesn't replace the GNG, but are an addition to it. As others have pointed out, the number of page views or twitter followers doesn't qualify for WP:ENT#2; they can both be faked, and as said above it's in the subjects own interest to appear to be popular. We don't know what the number of views include, and we have no way of verifying it, so it more or less counts as a "self-published" source, or at least one that isn't independent of the subject. #3 is quite broad, but I really don't see what he's done that is so unique or innovative from any of the links here, or in the article. (In addition there are at least four dead sources in the article.) And then we're really only left with the GNG, which also seem to fail, at least as far as I can tell. Bjelleklang - talk 20:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Implying that Gladstone would manipulate page views to make himeself look better is absolutely asinine. If that's the case, why not increase it to a million? 2 million? Articles on that site have sometimes generated 10 million views. It's also unfair to dismiss his fan base on twitter purely because its twitter. As was mentioned before, how else do you judge a fan base? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.145.48 (talk) 04:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The point is notability requires reliable sources independent of the subject. If the subject is employed by Cracked, one cannot simply cite Cracked as a source for popularity. Establishing that someone has a large fan base can actually be done pretty simply on Wikipedia- by citing independent reliable sources that make the claim. Citing a Twitter following as a large fan base – making an original claim – is not sufficient nor appropriate. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• If you do a quick search for it on places like Google, you'll find several sites who allow you to buy Twitter followers. And this is the primary reason for why the number of Twitter followers don't count. As for jacking up the number of views; who knows. But we can't verify it through other means, so therefore it can't count for notability. Bjelleklang - talk 19:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Okay then. Here are four independant, reliable places that he has been featured at. Daily Kos[27], WBEZ/NPR [28], WNFZ Boston [29], and WHRW Binghamton[30]. He was also a guest speaker at the Edmonton Exposition (as noted earlier). [31] Those are 5 places that have covered him. How's that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.145.48 (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As I have said, the only significant coverage in reliable sources of those five is the WBEZ/NPR article, which I grant is an interview on a news site. However, the other four are at best mere mentions of Gladstone or links to his content, not speaking to his fan base in the slightest. You cannot establish someone's notability on Wikipedia by linking to someone's content or mentioning their upcoming speaking engagements. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, now this is getting ridiculous. Of the five places, 4 invited him to discuss and talk about something he has created, whether it be an article or video. To dismiss all of them without even clicking the links and listening is just shoddy. For those of you watching at home, click the links. Other than Daily Kos, all of those radio programmes invited Gladstone to an interview. And the Edmonton Expo (which already fucking happened) invited him not to "merely mention him" but as a guest speaker BECAUSE of his work with Cracked/Comedy Central/Funny or Die/ Collegehumor.

• Let's stay civil. I did listen to the podcasts- Gladstone is on the line making jokes about various subjects like sexting. Gladstone is not the subject. On Wikipedia one cannot make the logical leap that he was invited as a guest speaker at the Edmonton Expo because he is notable without citing a source. I hope you understand that that statement is an original claim. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• His work gets coverage, that adding to his notability as an entertainer. Dream Focus 20:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Your arguing for WP:ENTERTAINER but it will still need to pass WP:GNG which requires multiple reliable sources about the subject so that we can write an article with. Those podcasts aren't usable in writing an encyclopedia article. See WP:WHYN: "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic." The podcasts are not significant coverage because there is nothing we can say about Gladstone using them as a source. Besides the WBEZ source. One source is not enough to pass GNG. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having a loud mouth doesn't mean you are culturally significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.62.161.188 (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As it is, the entertainer does not need to be culturally significant to be notable. He needs significant coverage in other reliable news organizations. He clearly has that, 3 radio programs, 1 NPR run site, and a panel at a comic convention. Even if you ignore the last one, that's still enough.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.145.48 (talk • contribs)

Again, you are confusing coverage by the subject with coverage about the subject. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're interviewing him about something he wrote, is that not coverage about the subject? "coverage by the subject" would mean HE is creating it and/or taking credit. That's not the case here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.145.48 (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Aside from the WBEZ one, these interviews are not sufficient significant coverage. One doesn't claim notability by being a guest speaker at the Edmonton Expo. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• But why is wbez the only one that works? Is it that WBEZ is inherently better than WNFZ or WHRW? Or because WBEZ only focuses on gladstone generally, and not specifically on something he made? if its the latter, that's not fair. there are dozens of authors or comedians who have only been interviewed because of their book or movie, hell, that's what all of late night talk show is. The fact stands, and no one has refuted it, Gladstone has been "covered" in four different, independent, and reliable places. The links have been posted a few times by a few different people, so its all here. Arguing about semantics is getting us nowhere. SO lets discuss specifically why the other 2 interviews don't work. --Rocketsteam100 (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There is significant coverage of Gladstone in the WBEZ article because he is the subject of that article. The other links either embed one of his videos or have him on to make jokes. They can be considered promotional or content, not coverage. Moreover, on Wikipedia one is not notable for merely appearing on a late night talk show (or a podcast or Edmonton Expo or having 15,000 Twitter followers). Unless you can find another reliable source to claim notability (the podcasts are questionable anyway), this isn't really a discussion but an enforcement of policy. If Gladstone were so notable, finding another reliable source should not be so difficult. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "If Gladstone were so notable, finding another reliable source should not be so difficult." Holy Taco[32]. Look, I'm not saying Gladstone is the next Jay Leno, I'm just saying he meets the bare requirements of notability. I would argue that the other shows do constitute significant coverage. WNFX[33] has[34] had[35] him[36] on a[37] lot of[38] times,[39] just like in general.[40]. So, there's that. And none of these interviews are them bringing him on just "to make jokes". They're specifically asking him about the subject content on his articles. And anyway, you can't accuse a comedian for making jokes when on air. Surely, the butt-load of links I just dumped is enough to constitute bare coverage, or is it not because its the same place? Rocketsteam100 (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposal That this page be re-written with all the relevant sources that have no come up but are no where present in its current writing. If, after a full re-write by either the original author or another poster (who would presumably volunteer here), he is still seen as non-notable, we can hold another discussion. I understand why Wikipedia deletes pages, especially for non-notable people. Normally, pages that are deleted of people have absolutely no coverage at all. However in this case, its abundantly clear that while there are independent places covering him, their significance is in question. As such, I think we should re-write the page instead of deleting it. Personally, I always viewed deletion at Wikipedia as a last resort, I've seen the ARS do whole re-writes or merges or whatever to try and save a page before. So why not now? Rocketsteam100 (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sepandar Kamvar. Consensus is to Merge/Redirect. I will go ahead and redirect for now, leaving the history intact; that way, anyone who wants to bring over info can do so easily. Also, should the subject become notable in the future (passing the WP:CRYSTALBALL concerns of the commentors here), it can be unredirected, but only if those concerns can be solidly met. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dog (programming language)[edit]

Dog (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is an article about a future product. From WP:CRYSTALBALL, "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. While Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Msnicki (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect to Sepandar Kamvar. Interestingly, there are news articles on the language, for instance, new-programming-language-makes-coding-social-apps-easier, but the ones I found seem more like press releases. Nonetheless, this seems to be a case of WP:TOOSOON; there are no sources I could find that describe the language in any detail. The main website http://www.dog-lang.org has an email sign up for future announcements and nothing else. When the language is released and multiple reliable sources can be found, I have no problems with this article being recreated. In the meantime, merge and redirect to the language creator's page is a reasonable course of action. It may be useful to note that there is already a DOG programming language, described at http://esolangs.org/wiki/DOG, which is also an attempt at a natural language approach to programming. Mark viking (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not yet real, research project, no external users, etc. Rwessel (talk) 07:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Sepandar Kamvar. Looks promising, but WP:TOOSOON as it's not even been released yet. Altered Walter (talk) 13:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and WP:TOOSOON. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merger and redirect to Sepandar Kamvar. There's potential to expand the current description with academic papers like this and commentary from the authors (see this and this) that describe the language, though those are primary sources. It seems that the Jabberwocky stack would be a better topic for the article, and it can be re-created by someone interested in writing about it. Diego (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good argument for merge and redirect. I've changed my recommendation. Mark viking (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be okay with merging, too. It's one of the suggested options in what I quoted from WP:CRYSTALBALL. Msnicki (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability doesn't seem to be an issue and per the Wired UK ref, " is already in use at the Skissernas Museum in Lund, Sweden" so I don't see why TOOSOON or CRYSTAL should apply. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This was AfD'ed within 12 hours of article creation. Big WP:BITEY trout to the nominator 8-( There was no excuse for this. Crap gets speedied, not AfDed. For anything that a nominator thinks might be AfD fodder, the least they could do, merely out of deference to a new (under a month) editor, would be to wait a few days and see how an article under active development turned out. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be less of a future product if the article were older? The problem I have with the article is that it's a WP:CRYSTALBALL article about a software product that the article claims will exist in the future but does not exist today. I take the claim that it doesn't exist as true, in which case it doesn't matter how long the authors of this article have been working on it. I also don't see how it's helpful to make this personal here and on my talk page, especially coming from the minority of one. Msnicki (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you know better than Wired that it isn't (as they claim) already in use?

The trout isn't about the AfD, it's about biting new editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware that AFD was now considered biting if it was a new editor. Would you kindly link me to that guideline and I'll happily apologize to the creator. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I brought it to the software project..but this new editor leeway crap is exactly that crap. If we set a lower standard simply because they are new we set a lower standard for the entire wikipedia. If it isn't up to snuff with the standards or guidelines why should we allow them to put more work into a product that shouldn't be here anyways, it's like the governemnt watching you build something and when you're done tell you "well we knew it wasn't to code but you were new here so didn't want to discourage you." It's like doing math when multiplying things by zero you always get zero...so whether the author is new or old if it shouldn't be here it should be deleted...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Mad, the Bad & the Dangerous[edit]

The Mad, the Bad & the Dangerous (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable music video of a concert. No references to show notability. Stowonthewolder (talk) 22:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I would have suggested redirecting but, considering there isn't any evidence to support this article, it wouldn't be appropriate. A Google News search provided nothing relevant and a main Google search provided primary sources. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Redirect to The Hamsters#Videos where it is logical to inform readers by sending them to where they might learn about the group, even if the video itself lacks coverage for an independent article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks notability needed to justify a separate WP article. Already listed in The Hampsters article. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 12:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WITHDRAWN. Found Chinese Wikipedia articles that indicate that this person is real and sufficiently significant. --Nlu (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Li Jiahang[edit]

Li Jiahang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to be hoax. The roles referred to are not supported by the Chinese Wikipedia articles linked (or by the links cited in those articles). Unless confirmed to be true, delete. --Nlu (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As it turned out, only one of the alleged Chinese Wikipedia articles linked actually exists. That's more the reason to believe that this is a hoax. --Nlu (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rodents Rock the Reich![edit]

Rodents Rock the Reich! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable music video of a concert. No references to show notability. Stowonthewolder (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:PERNOMINATOR before you make any more contributions like that. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a notable music video. Plaintive plaintiff (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to The Hamsters#Videos. Couldn't find enough coverage to pass WP:NALBUMS. Likeable band btw. --Ben Ben (talk) 10:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plaza de Mayo (Buenos Aires Metro)[edit]

Plaza de Mayo (Buenos Aires Metro) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Perú (Buenos Aires Metro) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Piedras (Buenos Aires Metro) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lima (Buenos Aires Metro) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sáenz Peña (Buenos Aires Metro) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Congreso (Buenos Aires Metro) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pasco (Buenos Aires Metro) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Alberti (Buenos Aires Metro) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Plaza Miserere (Buenos Aires Metro) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Loria (Buenos Aires Metro) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Castro Barros (Buenos Aires Metro) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Río de Janeiro (Buenos Aires Metro) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Acoyte (Buenos Aires Metro) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Primera Junta (Buenos Aires Metro) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Puan (Buenos Aires Metro) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Carabobo (Buenos Aires Metro) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Flores (Buenos Aires Metro) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nazca (Buenos Aires Metro) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We have the article Line A (Buenos Aires Metro), we don't really need articles about each specific station. There's very little to say about them, besides trivial information (such as which building are near it, or the decoration). After all, they are just places where the train stops and people get in or out. Notability is not inherited. Any actually meaningful information can be detailed at the main article Cambalachero (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all I suspect that this is simply the case of a user trying to boost their page creation count. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a BS. You should be banned from Wikipedia. BrasiliaBrasilia (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apoligies, sincerely, if you took that personally or badly. There is nothing wrong with trying to boost your counts. The question comes to how loosey-goosey one goes about it. It wasn't a personal attack. Sometimes the written word doesn't translate so well, if you were offended, I'll take responsibility. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uncalled for, mate. Speaking of banning, as your !vote here was only your sixth edit to Wikipedia and your first was a well-executed Wiki-formatting [41], might you be a sock of a banned user? --Oakshade (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all - Metro station in a metro city area of over 12 million. Per long-standing convention, such stations are considered inherently notable. It's absolutely impossible for such a major project to be planned, built, completed and refurbished without extensive government proposals, surveys and reports. That a vast majority of these stations opened in 1913 or 1914, I find it impossible that there is no historical coverage of them. Such a deletion proposal would never be made to any London Underground station article. This might have aspects of systemic bias. --Oakshade (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all- There is a long-standing precedent of notability of metro stations. Multiple templates for creating such pages exist. Metro station articles for most major cities are rampant. I know that "because something else exists" is not a reason, but in this case, it highlights the accepted notability of metro station articles.jsfouche ☽☾Talk 01:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all - what are you talking about, does that mean that stations in 78 cities throughout the world are going to be eliminated, see: Railway stations by city, and that stations in countries throughout the world will also be eliminated, see Railway stations by country, this really sounds like absolute nonsence — Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 05:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep alll BrasiliaBrasilia (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)— BrasiliaBrasilia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep per Moebiusuibeom-en, plus nomination is really seeking a merge, not deletion.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Other major cities (London, New York, Paris, etc) have dedicated articles for each subway station. No need to single out this one city for second-class treatment. --Noleander (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There are certainly train station entries for places like Sydney in Australia, so no reason why Buenos Aires shouldn't have theirs.Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - For the sake of consensus I will switch my vote. I am smart enough to know when I might be seeing things the wrong way, and adult enough to admit it. I don't fully agree with the reasoning that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I will go with the flow on this one. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...good going dude — Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SK#1. I withdraw this nomination, and no delete !votes are presented herein other than the nomination. Also, thanks to User:Michig who worked to establish the notability for this topic. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finlay (band)[edit]

Finlay (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This indie rock band from London appears to fail WP:N. This topic passes point #5 of WP:BAND, having released albums on at least two notable independent record labels (Fortuna Pop!, Truck Records), but this alone may not be enough to qualify topic notability due to a lack of independent reliable sources about the band. Per WP:BAND, a topic "may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria", but this does not guarantee notability. Sources in the article do not appear to meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources (LastFM, which has a conflict of interest in selling their tracks and albums, Myspace and Indieworkshop). Several searches in GNews archives and GBooks have not yielded coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per nom's own words --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Two albums on Fortuna Pop, coverage from Allmusic, Lancashire Telegraph. --Michig (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:BAND. — sparklism ^hey! 16:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Artist (Season:1)[edit]

Teen Artist (Season:1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is about a single season of what I am assuming is a tv show, there are also separate pages for seasons 2 and 3. However there is no page for the show itself, all three pages only contain a list of contestants with no context or references. I cannot find any information about the contest with Google and it is not on imdb. It doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG.

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Teen Artist (Season:2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Teen Artist (Season:3) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sarahj2107 (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Likely hoax, fails WP:V. Odd that the Wikia version of this apparent hoax has entirely different cast. [42] --j⚛e decker^talk 21:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:HOAX --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all three seasons. Fails WP:GNG. — ^Wylie_Coyote 21:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Young Brothers[edit]

The Young Brothers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Originally speedy deleted, re-created and I feel uncomfortable about speedying it again. Essentially, this band's only claim to fame is that some of the members helped to write a song which appeared as a filler on an album of another, notable artist. As notability is not inherited, I feel this band doesn't meet the notability guideline. There is one interview (from a weak source) referenced in the article, but aside from that the only sources I can find are entries on websites that review bands for weddings (which, I feel, speaks in itself about the significance of this band). Ultimately, fails WP:GNG, and notability is not inherited. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and insufficient explanation provided by the creator. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarding my article on "The Young Brothers" Thank you so, very much to whomever it was, for helping me clean up, or propperly construct my The Young Brothers article. The Young Brothers' career achievements, are remarkably & extraordinarily noteworthy, considering their direct association with Kid Rock & the Cinderella type story, behind their co-write with Kid Rock called, "Redneck Paradise". It's hardly an album filler. I have heard the song, which can be found on youtube, and it is likely to be Kid Rock's hit song off the "Rebel Soul" album. It's not everyday, that a song written by two struggling, economically challenged brothers, gets used by a major label artist, to re-names a Bahama island destination, for a company such as Norwegian Cruise Lines [43][44]. If you have any other advice, that you may offer, to help me get my article approved, I would greatly appreciate any help you might care to offer! Thank you again, so very much! Tybllc (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)tybllcTybllc (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi there. As I pointed out above, the problem with your argument is that notability is not inherited from other subjects (in this case, Kids Rock). In order to warrant an article of their own, The Young Brothers have to establish their own notability independent of Kids Rock, or anything else. In order to do that, we need to find good, independent, reliable sources to verify the information. One of the links you've provided above is the one decent source in the article that I mentioned in the nomination, but aside from that I can't find anything else, and one is not enough according to the general notability guideline. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I must "CONTEST" your deleting my The Young Brothers article, based on the fact that my The Young Brothers article does unquestionably meet Wikipedia's "NOTABILITY" Requirements, following criteria for both A. "musicians & ensembles", as well as B."composers and lyricists".
  1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.Wikipedia:MUSIC
     • Criteria for musicians and ensembles: "As co-writers, will have a single "Redeck Paradise" off Kid Rock's Rebel Soul album on America's national music charts", soon after it's scheduled release by Kid Rock, as a single come Spring of 2013.
     • Criteria for composers and lyricists: "By having credit for co-writing both lyrics & music for a notable composition".) Wikipedia:MUSIC) by their "CLEAR MENTION "AS A BAND", & CREDIT" for co-writing (with Kid Rock) a notable composition, in Billboard Magazine's November Issue, next to #6. "Redneck Paradise", stating, "Teaming with The Young Brothers, Rock digs into a good-time, down-home country lope to bring us a Garden of Eden that allows chewing tobacco." (New Releases - Kid Rock - Rebel Soul - Track By Track Review | Billboard Magazine | billboard.com) As well as having co-writing credits for "Redneck Paradise" on Kid Rock's Rebel Soul album.

       This composition, is clearly, extraordinarily "NOTABLE", (of which I have already provided & referrenced the truthful fact) that it has had a Norwegian Cruise Lines, Bahama Island destination & resort, named after it. <- "THIS" I must insist, is an extraordinary achievement of "NOTABILITY", that is NOT "inherrited" as you say, but rather, a "DIRECT" achievement of "NOTABILITY" achieved by The Young Brothers, & deems my The Young Brothers article, worthy of being approved, based on wikipedia's own requirements!! The Young Brothers were mentioned, & creditted for the composition, as a band, in Billboard Magazine, under Track 6 "Redneck Paradise" [45]

• Again, I do "Thank you" kindly, for your consideration. Tybllc (talk) 10:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)tybllcTybllc (talk) 10:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't relevant either. Firstly, I don't think it's at all well-established that the recording is notable - it hasn't even been released as a single as far as I can tell. In addition, contrary to your claim to have proved the song's notability, the only source you have provided is one interview with the band (not independent) which doesn't analyse it in a critical way, and only exists as a commentary on the novel fact that a nothing band wrote a song for a something album. The fact still remains that they are a nothing band.

    Even if all the above wasn't true, your argument still doesn't stack up, because you're deceptively trying to use WP:COMPOSER as the standard for inclusion, when the guideline that should actually be applied is WP:BAND (this is a band after all). WP:BAND is extremely inclusive; there are 12 criteria which confer notability, but this band doesn't tick any of them. In fact, the guideline specifically states that bands which are famous only for a contribution to a notable larger piece of work, a stand-alone article is not appropriate.

    So, to summarise:

    1. The song isn't notable anyway and has never been released as a single.
    2. Even if it were, the band still wouldn't warrant their own article as this is their only claim to fame.
    3. You're trying to guideline-defraud contributors to this discussion by quoting the wrong inclusion guideline. The correct guideline is WP:BAND; all the criteria of which the subject fails. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Respectfully...

      May I draw your attention to the Steely Dan article, which (all significant accomplishments aside) states,

      "Steely Dan" is an "American rock band" consisting of core members Donald Fagen and Walter Becker.

      The band's music is characterized by complex jazz-influenced structures and harmonies played by Becker and Fagen along with a "revolving cast of rock and pop studio musicians".

      I bring this to your attention, because The Young Brothers is also an "American rock band" consisting of core members Eric Young and Jason Young, &

      The band's music is characterized by Rock structures and harmonies played by Young and Young along with a "revolving cast of rock studio musicians", (which at the moment, Gary Gilbert (former session player for the rock band Kansas, is their sessioning bassist).

      It seems to me, that your going out of your way, to downplay The Young Brothers significance as both musicians & composers. And I don't appreciate your hostile mud sling'n, in referring to them as a "Nothing Band" lumped in with "Wedding Bands" who wrote a common "Filler Song"!

      This song, "Redneck Paradise" penned originally by these composers, has just had a Bahama island named after it. So, you're telling me, that such is a common occurance, deserving of no "Notability" much less, your respect???

      Tybllc (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)tybllcTybllc (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

      • "...our sessioning bassist"? Are you a member of the band or connected with them? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am their manager! Tybllc (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)tybllcTybllc (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think this says everything that needs to be said. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarding "THE" The Young Brothers article...

  I have corrected the article, to exemplify that (as comparable to the Steely Dan article regarding band vs composer structuring) it clearly credits the individual composers, or as the Steely Dan article calls it, "CORE MEMBERS", so that it now justifyably meets the Requirements, following criteria for both (A). "musicians & ensembles", & (B)."composers and lyricists". Wikipedia:MUSIC

  1. Criteria for musicians and ensembles: (2) "As co-writers, will have a single "Redeck Paradise" off Kid Rock's Rebel Soul album on America's national music charts", soon after it's scheduled release by Kid Rock, as a single come Spring of 2013.
  2. Criteria for composers and lyricists: (1) "By having credit for co-writing both lyrics & music for a notable composition".) Wikipedia:MUSIC) by their "CLEAR MENTION "AS A BAND", & CREDIT" for co-writing (with Kid Rock) a notable composition, in Billboard Magazine's November Issue, next to #6. "Redneck Paradise", stating, "Teaming with The Young Brothers, Rock digs into a good-time, down-home country lope to bring us a Garden of Eden that allows chewing tobacco."(New Releases - Kid Rock - Rebel Soul - Track By Track Review | Billboard Magazine | billboard.com) As well as having co-writing credits for "Redneck Paradise" on Kid Rock's Rebel Soul album.

     Please re-evaluate "THE" article, & tell me if it now qualifies based on the merits of the individual composers, or core members.

     Thank you kindly again, for your patience & help! Tybllc (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)tybllcTybllc (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changing the wording of the article to try and make it conform to your view of reality does not change the fact that this is a band, and the notability governing bands is WP:BAND, and that this band fails that guideline. Also, please note that comparing this article to other examples of poor practice is not a particularly compelling argument.Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment feel free to trout-slap me for asking, but does Tybllc stand for "The Young Brothers, LLC"? --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haa.. That is actually an honest question Sue, & I could fib & say "NO", but the truth is it does. I am their manager, as I have already admitted such to Basalisk above. I am aware of the C.O.I. guidelines, & I am doing my dambdest to be completely objective. But if such, is that much of a risk, I can easily pick up the phone & find or hire someone else to author the article. If we may please put the "C.O.I." topic aside for just one moment? And if you will please, kindly observe the corrections I have "Objectively" & "Accurately" made to the page, I am sure that you will find, that it does meet the requirements of "NOTABILITY" that Wiki's guidelines demand. Please, go & "OBJECTIVELY" take a look at the page now?.

    Thank you kindly.

    Ps. @ "Basalisk" Please answer one question... (All notable accomplishments aside) How is it not bias, or favoratism on the part of Wikipedia, to let composers Donald Fagan & Walter Becker get away with qualifying by Wikipedia as (Steely Dan) a band, when they are actually "NOT" really a band, but rather, composers, yet if I cite their already set precident, I get told, "comparing this article to other examples of poor practice is not a particularly compelling argument"??? Maybe someone should "Nominate the Steely Dan article for deletion", being that you've just called it "poorly written"??? I really don't believe that I am the biased one in this discussion.

    Tybllc (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)tybllcTybllc (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a vanity page of nonnotable band. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Tybllc, read User:Uncle G/On notability#Writing about subjects close to you. This is an encyclopaedia, not a band database. Things get in here by being already documented parts of human knowledge. Wikipedia:Notability explains that quite clearly.

  Steely Dan#References shows just some of the published independent documentation for Steely Dan. There's even a book in there. At The Young Brothers#References, in stark contrast, you have an empty page with a Flash box, an advertisment, a press release, a band interview, a news article about another band, and a blank page with another Everywhere Girl on it. We are encyclopaedists. We don't care that you think that you're as good as Steely Dan. We're not in the business of rating bands. This is an enyclopaedia. We care about the existence of proper, published, independent, reliable, in-depth documentation of subjects. So where are the independent, reliable, published books, articles, and so forth that document this particular band? You'll get exactly nowhere repeatedly going on about how other musicians are "not a band", because that is completely irrelevant here. Cite sources and show that this is a properly documented subject that can be written about and checked against published sources.

  Oh, and go to Wikipedia:Changing username and get your account name changed, too. It's a fairly easy process. Corporate and promotional account names are not allowed, here. Someone spotting this is likely to disable the account if you don't.

  Sources! Sources! Sources!

  Uncle G (talk) 13:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable per GNG or any other criteria I can see. --Nouniquenames 22:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Have gotten brief side mentions for having a song on the Kid Rock album, and that's about it. If and when they achieve significant coverage from reliable sources, then we should have an encyclopedia article about them, not the bio from the back of their 8x10 glossy. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 08:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hobbes Goodyear! I understand now, what it is you are seeking to meet the criteria, if you should decide to delete, I will try again at a later date with reliably sourced criteria verification in hand! For the record. This article is not derived from the band's glossy picture bio. On the contrary, The band just took it's Bio, from the wiki article's draft that you are voting down here!...lol Once again, I do thank you all kindly for your time & consideration. This has been a valuable experience for me, as a "NEWBIE" to Wiki! ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.94.99.136 (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This may be a cse of it being too soon for an article. Co-writing a song included on an album of a significant music artist is quite an accomplishment. However, that is not sufficient to meet wikipedia's inclusion criteria. At this point, any success is speculative. Nop prejudice to recreation in the future is they recieve significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I completely understand Whpq. Thank you for your kind acknowledgement regarding the possibility, of the article's future Wiki potential! If I had not tried creating the article now, I would not had learned of Wiki's procedures. Please forgive me for my ignorance in contesting you all so strongly. It has really taught me alot, & I owe you all a great big "Thank You"! Tybllc (talk) 09:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)tybllc  :)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dogpiss[edit]

Dogpiss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This punk rock band appears likely to fail WP:N. The band released one album on a subsidiary label, so it's possible that the band just meets criteria #5 of WP:BAND, but this may not be enough to confer topic notability for a Wikipedia article. Source searches are only providing passing mentions from Google Books. Haven't found any coverage in Google News archive. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per nom's own words --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hi Sue. Thing is, though, is that WP:BAND, part of the Wikipedia:Notability (music) guideline page, states that a topic "may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria", rather than that the topic is automatically notable if it meets at least one of the criteria. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • And one album is not multiple albums so it doesn't meet #5. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I cannot even find the books that Northamerica1000 alludes to. All that I can turn up are album listings on WWW sites. The article cites no sources, and I am unable to find any. Uncle G (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hello Uncle G. Here are the book sources I found from customized Google Books searches: [49], [50], [51]. They're all passing mentions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The other two are just one line album listings, but the one in Maximum RockNRoll looks like a CD review. I presume that you have read it. Is it mainly reviewer opinion and short on facts? Uncle G (talk) 08:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is a two sentence review in Melody Maker (by Trevor Baker, 15 May 1999 in Volume 76, Issue 19; ISSN: 0025-9012). Nothing that adds up to significant coverage in multiple independent references. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not notable, wikipedia doesn't care about oft garage bands. –BuickCenturyDriver 23:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) -- Cheers, Riley 00:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Fight (band)[edit]

The Fight (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This band from Dudley, England appears to fail WP:N. While this band may meet criteria #5 of WP:BAND, having released an EP on an independent label (Fat Wreck Chords) and an album on another label (Repossession Records; status as independent or "important" per WP:BAND is unknown), this may not be enough to confer overall topic notability for a standalone article on Wikipedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meets criteria --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Enough releases that they're at least close to being notable. There is a review at Allmusic. Most of the other coverage I found relates to the stabbing of Jack Turley, but it at least confirms some details: [52][53][54][55]. A bit thin unless anyone can dig something else up. --Michig (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've added some more (relatively weak) refs to the article. With those, Michig's above and those presented by Michig in the last AFD there is enough coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per the nominator's withdrawal and no outstanding !votes for deletion. It is felt that the topic has suitable sourcing in the Japanese language even if not in English. My recommendation is that we encourage editors better able to translate and provide such sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Makoto Koshinaka[edit]

Makoto Koshinaka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete, artist is not notable by himself. Sources include IMDB, MTV beta and doesn't indicate that the artist passes notability guidelines. Has been multiple times recreated, if general consensus comes back as not notable can we please salt? It is possible there may be sources in Japanese that may show notability so japanese speaking editors are encouraged to help shed light on anything we are missing. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sirs, the article was deleted because of "copyright violations". Although it didn't DIRECTLY CITE or COPY anything from another cite, it was too similar to another page. So I took the time and effort to edit it, to make it completely independent, and also to create the most complete and documented page on the specific artist. I am sure you won't consider a 10 years career as "not notable". And, as I already indicated, you already have TWO PAGES on Wikipedia English, to which I directly link through this article. Is is definitely not minor, not undocumented and not isolated. It is part of a bigger subject which you are already touching. And, if you wish, I can continue to post on matters related to the subject, enriching even further the encyclopedia. It was my fault in the beginning, for maybe not understanding correctly the guidelines, but I made sure that everything is in order. NB: if you do not personally know an artist, it doesn't men the artist isn't relevant. I'm sure you never read Mihai Eminescu. But he is the national poet of my country, Romania. - which also explains why I am creating this page in English - is it required and necessary, since this is not a local artist I am referring to - I deeply regret the troubles cause and I think you for keeping an open mind and a positive attitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felixuca (talk • contribs) 20:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finding sources: http://www.mimu-net.net/news.php?newsid=1142 http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/japanese-actor-makoto-koshinaka-arrives-for-the-red-carpet-news-photo/83020662?esource=life_license http://www.artistdirect.com/nad/store/artist/album/0,,4418147,00.html http://www.barks.jp/news/?id=1000077740 http://www.barks.jp/news/?id=1000081731 http://natalie.mu/music/news/79889 http://www.bsnnews.com/news/index.php?NewsID=15494 http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/ichVUkXitDm/Bangkok+International+Film+Festival+2008+Day/VVj55dJPlHf http://www.realtec.jp/ http://mastermind.seesaa.net/ http://www.thaiticketmajor.com/concert/concert-detail.php?sid=1608&la=en http://fcmen.jp/ http://www.club-zy.com/freepaper.php

I will find others until tomorrow. Just let me know if you see those. We are doing our best. And thank you very, very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felixuca (talk • contribs) 21:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I am inclined to keep having watched this video - anyone getting that reaction from a chatshow appearance in what to him is a foreign country can safely be regarded as 'notable' I think. I would say that it is very likely that there are sources in Japanese that show notability. --Michig (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.Found an article about him specifically in The Nation "Makato" The Nation (Thailand), 22 September 2010. I found another 10 articles referring to him playing, and mention him in some way at festivals. He seems to be somewhat important....I'm sure there would be more Japo language sources covering him. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Sorry Hell (a reference to the name Hell in a Bucket in this scenario) but I am not that profecient in Jap, although I do can comprehend a certain level of Simple Jap, since it incorporates some Chinese. Anyway, I'm sure there are many editors here that understand Jap. Let's ask them. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 13:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does appear sources are available in Japanese and the video link from Michig does show some notability, I'm prepared to withdraw the nom. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll do a search and see what I can find. I can only read a few Japanese characters, but I had a fairly good translation program on my browser.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. From what I can see on her page on the Japanese Wikipedia, it looks like she's either appeared on several shows and/or did the theme songs for several dramas. Also, if all else fails then she could be redirected to Lucifer (band). I'm trying to search, but it's a little difficult since there are so many "junk" hits and the Google news archive is being difficult.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The artist actually starred as an ACTOR in everything listed on this page :) I couldn't use as reference YouTube, as you can imagine. But I saw I can post here materials, for your personal consideration. So, if you need further documentation, watch this video, this video and this video (There are a lot more, for your reference). Redirecting to Lucifer (band) is not really relevant, since it covers only 4 years of the artist's activity (of 13 years). This page is meant to document, aiming to be the most complete information page. In a personal note, if you want the best criteria for notability... I am Romanian. I am just starting to learn Japanese. And I KNOW about this artist, as do many other persons from other countries. If this doesn't count for something... :) Let me know how I can help further. Felixuca (talk) 12:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Special thanks to everyone who I see took time to help and improve the layout of this page!Felixuca (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SK#1. I withdraw this nomination. I found some sources from the Gnews archive search below, including [56] and [57]. I will be revising my search criteria for sources to include using the Find sources template – some searches directly at Google News archives and searches from this template are sometimes yielding different results. This topic at least meets WP:N. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Barbs[edit]

The Barbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A band that appears to fail WP:N and likely WP:BAND. Several source searches, including customized ones such as [58] and [59] have not provided any coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Katy Perry's fourth studio album[edit]

Katy Perry's fourth studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced + most of the data are invented + it's too early. WP:CRYSTAL ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 19:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 4. Snotbot  t • c »  19:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL: there's no release date and no track listing and the article is largely made up of uninformative quotes rather than facts or critical comment. Any encyclopedic content could be merged to Katy Perry but there's precious little of that. I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect, but I'm not sure it's needed. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: there's no title for the album yet, no release date yet, just 100% news material and Wikipedia is not a news site. --SuperHotWiki (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per all comments above, plus clearly violates WP:CRYSTALBALL Arre 05:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Ersland[edit]

Jerome Ersland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject of this article is non-notable and was brought briefly into the media spotlight nearly four years ago for shooting an unarmed robber. Apart from this single event, the subject has no other reason to be on Wikipedia and fails the Notability requirement. The article itself has mostly been written by a single user and contains heavy POV issues and Original Research pertaining to the causes and motivations of the crime. Recommend Deletion. OberRanks (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not noteworthy enough. Kierzek (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, widely cited in firearm/carry permit training. Jakiah (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom--Dcheagle • talk • contribs 22:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was as follows:

• Keep Paradise Cracked and Alfa: Antiterror although there may be a renomination later. During the discussion the nomination withdrew his support for deletion of the two games, and that leaves two delete votes, one citing that the games are "lacking in depth coverage" without further analysis and a "per nom", later the nom as we saw, has withdrawn the nomination statement. My role here is to determine whether there is a consensus for deletion (there is not) or if there is any policy violation in the article that mandates deletion (given that some possible sources have been proposed in this discussion, the problems may be surmountable). As such, I find that any consensus that might be here is closer to keeping than it is to deleting.
• No consensus on GFI Russia and Game Factory Interactive. Both Odie5533 and Hellknowz have both advocated merging these together, although Alex Spade has objected to that. I am at this point unable to assess the pros and cons of merging them, so I leave that up to regular editorial practices. If someone thinks they can be merged neatly, they may be bold and do so.

The debate is slightly confusing because there is a bundle of nominations here, and in hindsight the bundling may not have been the best idea. (But this is very much in hindsight, where we have the added benefit of seeing how the debate actually developed.)

I note that the sourcing currently cited in the articles is still imperfect in some of the areas that provoked this AFD, for example many of the sources are not independent of the subject and others are iffy on reliability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Game Factory Interactive[edit]

Game Factory Interactive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

GFI Russia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Paradise Cracked (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Alfa: Antiterror (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Tagged for notability since Feb 2009. Cursory search did not turn up any RS. There may possibly be some Russian language sources, hence bringing it here. Also nominating its subsidiary articles. SpinningSpark 12:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There are GFI, GFI Russia, ALFA, Paradise (in English) and further by links.
  Paradise and ALFA (in Russian) in Igromania magazine. Alex Spade (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there any reason to suppose that any of those are WP:RS? Moby Games is a wiki and appears to allow anyone to edit. There is no evidence of any editorial review process: no chief editor, no editorial board, no staff jounalists, no named journalist on article bylines. The Russian site seems to be much the same, although I do not read Russian, this page seems to be inviting submission of articles. All the links you provided are to one of those two sites. SpinningSpark 20:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, MG is allowing outside editing, but it gives you links to other sources. You can analyze them.
  Igromania is one of lead Russian video game magazine (printed, not just electronic). It has chief editor, editorial board and staff. But it (and most of other journals/magazines/newspapers) invites free-lancers as well.
  ru:Cnews.ru - is one of lead Russian electronic news site about computers, IT and high-techs. Mist-land (lattely GFI Russia) on Cnews.ru: [60], [61], [62]; GFI (parent company) on Cnews.ru: [63], [64]. Alex Spade (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because MG links to reliable sources in no way makes MG a reliable source. In any case I am not seeing those links and where they should be, if really reliable, is in the articles. Igromania and Cnews, though, sound more convincing. I'll shut up now and see what others think. SpinningSpark 18:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Yup, those links don't make MG a reliable source. Those links may demonstrate notability in themselves. I just don't want to copy-paste them.
  For examples, ru:Game.EXE (in article about Paradise) was another of lead Russian video game magazine (currently closed); GameStar (in article about Alfa) and PC Games (in article about Paradise) are ones of lead German video game magazines. Alex Spade (talk) 13:13, 22 November 2012 (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) 02:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All and merge GFI Russia into Game Factory Interactive if another editor supports the merge. Otherwise both should probably be kept. Original comment: These probably should have been nominated individually. Paradise Cracked and Alfa: Antiterror appear notable; I added a bunch of references to their articles. I am not sure how reliable itc.ua or ag.ru are (perhaps Alex Spade could check?) but they seem reliable, and the other sources are certainly reliable. I will have to check on the other game and companies. (edit 1) GFI Russia should probably be merged into Game Factory Interactive just so that we can present the company in the greater context of GFI. GFI Russia does appear notable on its own though. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • GFI and GFI Russia merging is not a good idea. Historically first one is publisher and localizator primary, second one is developer. Their main historic lines are different enough. The more appropriate solution is merging of Game Factory Interactive + Russobit-M and renaming new article into Belver (new name for Bestway group alliance), but this question must be discussed in new/another discussion. Alex Spade (talk) 13:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still think that a single article could cover all three of these companies because we have so little content on them all. They are likely all notable in their own right, however, I think they can be best dealt with on a single article and have a section dedicated to GFI Russia. If at some point the article becomes too long, then they could be split off into individual articles. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the two organisations as lacking in depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ALL per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would urge you to reconsider looking at the sources provided on Alfa: Antiterror and Paradise Cracked. Each one has 10 reliable sources offering significant coverage of the game. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the trouble with "per nom"s when nom alters their rationale. :P —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I now agree that the two games pages would benefit from a separate debate and wish to withdraw them. I won't strike them because there are already votes on them, but request that only GFI and GFI Russia pages are considered by the closer. Anyone is free to make another nomination for Paradise Cracked and Alfa: Antiterror if they feel it is justified. SpinningSpark 16:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and merge Game Factory Interactive and GFI Russia. Here and here are interviews with GFI and here with MiST. Here and here are a dev inteviews on Warfare with mentions of company. Here's a news article. Here is another interview, but I doubt it's a reliable source. I'm sure I could dig out more, but I think that's enough for WP:GNG at this time. Keep Paradise Cracked and Alfa: Antiterror as having WP:GNG suitable WP:VG/RS. (P.S. Looking at searches above other games like Warfare (2008) are also most likely GNG notable) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniela Lungu[edit]

Daniela Lungu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

None of the sources provided does anything to substantiate this individual's claims to notability: passing mention that she once helped run a fundraiser; a dead link and a blog post. Promotional vanity page. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Brazov link is fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.211.40.145 (talk) 23:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. We now have, in addition to the two links described above, a page from a travel promotion site mentioning her name among a list of administrators' names for a film festival; a mirror of that page; and a press release with passing mention of her name. Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Not so much. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 00:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Insufficient evidence of in-depth coverage about this person herself to meet the notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Google News found two results from this month here and here and Google News archives found nearly all Romanian results with some irrelevant English ones. Her Romanian website and these results suggest she is primarily based in Romania. SwisterTwister talk 03:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • She is indeed based in Romania; still not notable, though. It's a common name; this refers to a financial protection officer in Slatina, while this refers to a lawyer from Botoşani. The Google News hits are about those two rather than this one. Still waiting for significant coverage of the television producer. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:49, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A Lexis search turns up nothing in English sources. Unless Romanian RSs can be procured, my vote is delete. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 23:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Bailey (CEO)[edit]

Jason Bailey (CEO) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO. Reads like a cv. Some of the writing style is not in keeping with WP but that is a separate issue. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, doesn't appear notable per our guidelines, article is promotional. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, because he is working in radio (and has been a presenter) he seems to have the knack of 'putting himself out there' rather than a back room CEO, for example the news source already in the article and this one too. I'm willing to believe he may have some sort of public profile. Sionk (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that editors have a predilection towards creating biographical articles would you change your !vote to weak delete? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why. It's okay to create biographical articles as long as they meet a minimum standard of notability. My 'vote' is 'Weak' because two in-depth sources (so far identified) are the very minimum number to be 'multiple'. Sionk (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why is as I have stated. Also,we shoiuld look at the big picture. Should WP a Who's Who with a smattering of other articles, or should it be an encyclopaedia? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete After reviewing this page and the page for Sun Broadcast Group, I am convinced they are using Wikipedia in violation of WP:PROMOTION. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete --joeOnSunset (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. Shorthate (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SK#1. The nominator withdrew their nomination, and no !votes to delete (other than the nomination) were posted. (Non-administrator closure.). Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lucifer (band)[edit]

Lucifer (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete appears to fail WP:BAND

Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found something that makes me conclude should not be deleted my apoligies. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn, in other words? הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Opinions are split between delete and redirect. So, as a minimum, we have consensus that this shouldn't be an article, hence deletion. Anybody who wants to can editorially create a redirect, and then anybody else is free to take that to RfD if they strongly disagree.  Sandstein  18:22, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Post-processing hell[edit]

Post-processing hell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to be a violation of WP:NEO Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete I was searching for a criteria to CSD this. --Anbu121 (talk me) 17:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, see WP:MADEUP and WP:NEO. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't think this is a neologism or is made up. It is a term used by folk in the photography or video fields; the article's creator seems to be a professional photographer. A Google search yields hits for the term, e.g. Post-Processing Hell. If this was an article, I would probably recommend delete because I could not find any reliable sources. But I don't think references are needed for a simple disambiguation page. Mark viking (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not a disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • • It was until you removed the disambiguation tag and associated links :-) Mark viking (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  It wasn't even then. It was only a non-disambiguation page incorrectly tagged as a disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk)

• Redirect to Post-processing, which includes the same disambiguation. Or delete if you must. I spend too many days actually doing post-processing to argue that the term doesn't get said now and then, I just don't see coverage requiring a separate, but functionally identical disambiguation page. --j⚛e decker^talk 21:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I wasn't aware of the Post-processing disambiguation page. I agree redirect is the better option here. Mark viking (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The disambiguation page Post-processing doesn't explain what the word 'hell' stands for. Hence I think, it shouldn't be redirected. --Anbu121 (talk me) 05:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly. A redirect to an article that doesn't cover the topic is just a redirect for deletion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete This is not the Urban Dictionary --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as neologism. Replicating the post-processing dab page on the new page doesn't make it a dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Post-processing; it's jargon in a certain field, but seems to lack the sources for notability. Additionally, you could argue it's an obvious combination of "post-processing"(in photography) and "hell"(=bad) so in real-world contexts you don't need an encyclopedia article to say what it means. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  In real-world contexts you don't need that Wikipedia redirect either. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • • Actually, we do. It's the obvious preventative measure for stopping the create-nominate-discuss-delete cycle happening again, the next time that someone is so convinced that this is the name that xe starts a duplicate article at this title. We've long used prophylactic redirects at mis-spelled or slang names for exactly this when people have been so convinced of the bad names that they've started articles at them. See Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes of redirects. Uncle G (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If there's a need to prevent the article being created again, salting would be the appropriate way rather than redirect, atleast in this case. Redirect shouldn't be done unless the target article explains the redirect. --Anbu121 (talk me) 17:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wrong. Remember that we are writing to be read, and put some thought into the experience for the readers. They know the colloquial name "post-processing Hell"; they put it into Wikipedia; a redirect takes them to the right place. Salting is not for this sort of situation, and doesn't achieve this result. Now go and read Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes of redirects for when redirects should and should not actually be done. Uncle G (talk) 10:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Of course, I have read it. 'Post processing hell' is not an alternative name or misspelling to be redirected. --Anbu121 (talk me) 11:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Right. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • • • • • • Clearly you haven't read it, otherwise you wouldn't be espousing the incorrect statement above about what redirects are for; as there are plenty of examples there of prophylactic and other redirects that are not "explained by the target article". And clearly both you and JHunterJ also haven't read even the discussion so far on this page, where Mark viking showed pretty much at the start photographers other than Daryl L. Hunter using this colloquial name. It's fairly easy to turn up more by duplicating Mark viking's research, if one pulls one's finger out. Here's another photographer from a different continent confirming the colloquial name, for example. Again, neither of you have apparently read or researched any of this. Uncle G (talk) 12:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • It is an individual opinion, not a recognized and published alternative name. Suppose, I write a blog calling it as 'Post processing Heaven', can I create a redirect for it in Wikipedia? --Anbu121 (talk me) 13:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • See below. Uncle G (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Post-processing per compelling arguments made by users JHunterJ, j⚛e decker, Colapeninsula and Uncle G. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You may intend to strike my handle there -- my compelling arguments are for deletion. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  So stricken... but your responses to arguments further convinced me of the merits of a simple and cheap redirect that serves the project and its readers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm fine with a redirect to Post-processing as it is a possible search term. Cavarrone (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Possible search terms are often best dealt with through search results. Google suggests completing a search on "post-processing" with post-processing scripts folder, post-processing photography, post-processing scripts sabnzbd, post-processing effects, post-processing scripts folder sickbeard, post-processing photography techniques, post-processing of the factorybean object failed, post-processing ir photography, and post-processing failed xml publisher. Those are therefore possible search terms. Shall we create redirects for each of them too? Of should we instead delete post-processing hell and allow it to go naturally to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=post-processing+hell&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=1 ? -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  The point is that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=post-processing+hell&title=Special%3ASearch&fulltext=1 just returns a bunch of false positives and no sensible result, so redirecting readers to the only relevant page sounds reasonable. Cavarrone (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  I am seriously thinking of writing a blog on Post processing heaven and marketing it to see if someone else creates a redirect for it in wikipedia ;-) --Anbu121 (talk me) 18:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • • • • You aren't thinking, seriously or otherwise. Daryl L. Hunter is a photographer, not some random person with a pseudonym on Wikipedia. So is this person. This is not you making up stuff from thin air. This is colloquial terminology clearly used by practitioners in the field, to the extent that one person was motivated to write an article under the title. Again: We have for many years employed prophylactic redirects in such cases because experience teaches that where one writes an article at a poor title, others will follow. This is simple good sense and forward planning on our parts. We want readers and writers, who only know the colloquial names for things, to be directed to the right places in the encyclopaedia: the latter so that they can read about the subject and learn the proper name, and the former so that they don't end up creating a slew of duplicate articles at poor titles again and again. Uncle G (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  My point is that "post-processing" is also not a sensible result, and there is no relevant page, so the redirect should be deleted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • • • • Which has been refuted above by Colapeninsula. And if you want to fix post-processing so that readers can find about digital image processing, digital image editing, and digital post-processing in still photography rather than video, you have an edit tool. Uncle G (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because you and Colapeninsula agree doesn't mean that my disagreement has been refuted. You've also made the logical fallacy that any problems that result from the application of my view must be fixed by me. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and probably NEO. --Nouniquenames 01:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 16:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Alternative top 10 singles in 2012[edit]

List of Billboard Alternative top 10 singles in 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Do we need these for third-level subcharts as well as the primary chart such as the Billboard Hot 100 (List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2012) and UK Singles Chart (List of UK top 10 singles in 2012), which already contains such indiscriminant info such as when songs debuted and how many weeks it spent in the top 10 and when it reached its peak, but we should now do this for every chart imaginable? That seems a bit much. Sure it's nice that these songs reach the top 10 in its particular genre but that's info best provided in the article of those songs but not another inadequately sourced summary chart. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'd be fine with listing #1 singles, but we have to draw a reasonable line somewhere, and it's true that this can be adequately covered within individual articles on songs, artist discography, etc. Kansan (talk) 05:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Normally I don't like these kinds of lists, but there are fewer than 50 songs that cracked the top 10 in 2012. I think that is a reasonable number for a page. I can see myself Googling "Top 10 alternative singles 2012" and it would be nice to have a page with that data. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 19:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Kansan. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Noise Records. MBisanz ^talk 21:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Machinery Records[edit]

Machinery Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This record label based in Berlin has not received significant coverage in multiple reliable third-party sources. The topic fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a hard one - if the claims made on that article are true (and this is pre-web) then the label is obviously notable enough. But I can't find a single source that supports them claims. §FreeRangeFrog 23:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm pretty sure this is notable, but finding online coverage for a label from the 80s and 90s is quite difficult, especially a with such a generic name and the fact that it was a German label. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have recollected several sources in english and other languages: [65] [66] [67] — ṞṈ™ 22:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if the article is accurate, then if feels like there should be more references out there, but they're not in evidence. If the article is significantly improved, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Noise Records. It appears Machinery Records only lasted two years before being taken over by Noise. Sionk (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge This label went by the wayside in 2001, so internet sources are hard to find. I did a fairly in-depth Lexis search going back to 1994 and I only found one article that mentions Machinery Records: ‘‘Sealing it with a kiss’’, Hobart Mercury (Australia) October 8, 2008

Though the trio were into vastly different forms of music, Snog began recording together in 1990. Unable to generate any interest from Australian record labels, the group travelled to Germany and signed to Machinery Records.

Even the German page lacks secondary sources [68]. This page should be merged with the company that acquired it. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Noise Records. I'd say this doesn't quite pass WP:GNG as it stands, but it's a possible search term and there is a chance more RSes could be found somewhere down the line. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 16:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Short Discharge Time[edit]

Short Discharge Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete as a violation of WP:NOR as primary source provided is by the author and user. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't think this is original research, as the article refers to and is based on a primary source. The main problem with the article is that "Short Discharge time" doesn't seem to be a notable topic, in that there are no sources I could find that are independent of the primary source. There are no secondary sources that I could find. Also, it appears that the author of the article may also the author of the primary source, which is a conflict of interest; see WP:COI for details. Mark viking (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By definition that constitutes original research 8) but it is definitely a coi too. Hell In A Bucket (talk)

• Delete per WP:OR --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research. As I understand it, the creator is not a recognized expert on the topic and the only source is a self-published work written by the creator. If the creator were an expert, it would not be OR (though there would be COI issues which should not be cause for deletion). Jojalozzo 05:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete - pure OR, per nom. ukexpat (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - OR PianoDan (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted (G3) by NawlinWiki. (non-admin closure) Lugia2453 (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gartrice[edit]

Gartrice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete per WP:NEO can not find any reference to the term online so basically things made up someday

Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No evidence/argument of meeting general or applicable specific notability guideline j⚛e decker^talk 17:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muhamad Tuah Iskandar[edit]

Muhamad Tuah Iskandar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the articles creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an example of an individual who fails the WP:GNG and has not played a professional football match. Cloudz679 22:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per PROD. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Horribly written and even more horribly outdated. Nevertheless, it appears he's played with Johor FC in the top-level Malaysia Super League for two seasons now, which would pass WP:NFOOTY. Faustus37 (talk) 07:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - looks like it, until you check and see the club he played for is not Johor FC but Johor United, who have only played in the non-professional Malaysia Premier League. Although he's signed for the "other" Johor, he is yet to play in the Super League. Cloudz679 08:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Faustus37 (talk) 08:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means it fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Hoffman[edit]

Lauren Hoffman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Disputed PROD. Subject fails WP:MUSICBIO - non-notable. ukexpat (talk) 14:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. She has a substantial bio at Allmusic[69] which notes, in part, that her first "album was released to stellar reviews and Virgin Records France put a lot of energy into promoting it, turning Hoffmann into a cult hit in France." Some digging through French Google turns up substantial coverage in sources such as this about her debut album/tour in Libération[70] and this about her second album in Les Inrockuptibles.[71] Also some coverage in English: Billboard[72][73], CMJ New Music Monthly[74], a page in a book about rock music from Virginia[75]. Passes WP:GNG.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — Let's stipulate that second Billboard URL is to an upcoming tour announcement giving very passing mention. That link in particular is not particularly useful. The Virginia music book is likewise passing mention and is of very limited use for demonstrating notability, though it could provide some supporting information surrounding Hoffman's notability. I've templated all but the second Billboard at the article talk page. JFHJr (㊟) 03:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Arxiloxos. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable enough --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly notable. As well as the copious coverage at Allmusic, these were easily found: CMJ New Music Report, CMJ New Music Monthly, Les Inrockuptibles, Les Inrockuptibles. Hardly surprising that the PROD was disputed. --Michig (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — I think several of the sources above demonstrate this subject is just notable enough. I'd rather not hang notability on allmusic.com, and I'm glad there's more than that to source decent biographical information. JFHJr (㊟) 03:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]