< 31 December	2 January >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is to delete. Since the article is close, if someone wants a user copy in case another source or two are found, let me know and I'll provide one. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suffokate[edit]

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

Article was CSD'd as G11 and A7, but restored. Extremely weak claims of notability, with primary author claiming it meets criteria 5 of WP:BAND. Record label itself is barely notable in its own right, even though there's currently a Wikipedia article. The only source provided appears to be a user-edited website, that seems unlikely to pass the WP:RS test (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable subject, borderline advert. Strongly agree with BWilkins. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wasn't able to find enough reliable sources which establish the subject's notability. Folgertat (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. But please note that whether or not a record label or book publisher is notable has absolutely nothing to do with whether an album or book published by or a band or author making use of that label or publishing house are notable. By and large people don't care at all, if they even notice, what label something is on, any more than they pay attention to the colophons on books these days; technology makes it cheap for anyone to be a publisher, including of CDs, books, etc.; and reliable sources generally don't write reviews of labels or book publishers and give them independent, notability-generating major press unless something unusual is happening. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 18:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So you guys don't care about the WP:BAND? You just decide subjectively if the band is notable or not? I believe that WP:BAND and other similar rules were created so we wouldn't need to have arguments like these in the first place. --Runkulis (talk) 13:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more than three full length audio releases out and signed to a notable label. Better sources could be found, but for now, this is what I got. I suggest giving the article a little time before deleting it again. • GunMetal Angel 18:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm of the opinion that Mediaskare Records lacks the roster of performers needed for wp:music #5. I did find some coverage that looks good. Hill, Shawn Jam (16 February 2011), "Dare to call it deathcore; California's Suffokate bristles at critics' label for its metal sound", Ottawa Citizen. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seem to be a couple of editors working to bring this article upto scratch. User:Duffbeerforme seems to have found a reasonable source to add. Pol430 talk to me 15:59, 1 January 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, Whenaxis about talk contribs 23:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - From what I was able see on the article (and by searching online), the article does not appear to meet the notability requirements, and the label does not meet the criteria of WP:MUSIC #5. - Sudo Ghost 00:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, weak assertion of notability. -Cntras (talk) 09:24, 11 January 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. Jujutacular ^talk 14:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen of Lesbians[edit]

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

I would have CSD this, but A7 is not valid since "Paradise has been featured on various radio station, blogs and newspapers", but I can't find any nor any relevant news. The "references" in the article are all the same: a blog post with her in that youtube video. mabdul 23:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not turning up any significant coverage in reliable sources. I think this is more Encyclopedia Dramatica-territory. (Do they still exist?) Mark Arsten (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No news about them either, unless local news turn up. No books yet. --George Ho (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources, done deal; as far as I can see, there's no element of WP:BIO satisfied by unknown wannabe waifs in bikinis, however much they're energetic self-promoters to every blog and webpage they can find. Ravenswing 10:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW; the article has been listed for deletion for almost two weeks. While she sounds fabulous in her own way, there is not a single reliable source to prove she is notable for any reason. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. Per all the above.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:34, 12 January 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 under G3 as a hoax. —Dark 23:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mission High School (San Jose, California)[edit]

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

Article about a high school that appears to be a hoax. The one reference is to a caption on an image in the Huffington Post (see article's talk page). This appears to be a misprint by the Post, since [1] shows that the school with the marching band in the 2012 London New Year Parade is Mission San Jose High School, which does exist, but is located in Fremont, CA; see: Mission San Jose High School. So the only reference is to a different school.

Searching on Google reveals no "Mission High School" in San Jose, CA. I believe this article to either be a deliberate hoax, or a mistake derived from a misprint in the reference. The tone of the "Student Body" article is unfortunate to say the least and draws its own conclusion about participation by African-American students from one picture. The infobox of the article is clearly copied from Mission San Jose High School, cf the school logo. Sparthorse (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax, the use of the same file for the crest of Mission San Jose High School on this article makes it obvious. If this and Sparthorse's evidence were not enough, this high school is not listed on any list of high schools in San Jose, California that I have seen, such as this one. Quasi human | Talk 22:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 1 January 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) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

M S Banga[edit]

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

Unreferenced biography of a living person.. Can't BLPPROD. A520 | Talk me away!/sign it! 18:30, 23 December 2011 (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/2011 December 24. Snotbot t • c » 05:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Prior to IP edits on 14 December 2010, this article did have a batch of references. Hence presumably why it wouldn't have been caught in the Great BLP Purge. These references are still visible in this version and could be replaced in the current article version. That said, they are of the corporate appointment announcement type. But it would be bets to consider these relative to this AfD and if deemed sufficient for notability, they can be re-added? AllyD (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On the basis of the presidential award now referenced in the article. AllyD (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- DQ (t) (e) 21:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AllyD's rationale, and also per significant coverage in multiple reliable sources: [2][3][4]. Quasi human | Talk 22:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Padma Bhushan recipients are notable without any iota of doubt. --Bhadani (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nomination's basis has been nullified by the addition of sources to the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:38, 3 January 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) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 17:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scottevest[edit]

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

This product/company does not pass WP:GNG requirements of substantial (non-trivial) coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. While it has some coverage, certainly more in its own right than its also non-notable CEO, this subject still fails WP:CORPDEPTH. In this case, litigation history isn't helping; it appears in some of the more reliable coverage I've found, but does not indicate any sort notability, and itself was not extensively covered. JFHJr (㊟) 17:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep needs more non-PR sources, but I think WP:N is just met. John Daker (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:04, 23 December 2011 (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/2011 December 24. Snotbot t • c » 05:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reviews like [5], [6] and especially, [7] from Fodor's appear to satisfy WP:GNG. Msnicki (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- DQ (t) (e) 21:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Per review sources listed above by User:Msnicki. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:27, 5 January 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. Kubigula (talk) 05:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Stand characters[edit]

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

The entire character list of a single novel, effectively the plot repeated over and over, the only two provided references appear to reference very little Jac16888 ^Talk 21:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I created this subpage from the main article [The Stand]] because I feel the list made it too long. Everyone can feel free to make editing to save this list.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 21:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree... useful content can be merged into the book's article, and the detailed descriptions are unnecessary. Shadowjams (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's actually a !vote for merging then, not deletion, and because of contributors' licensing concerns this would have to remain as a redirect. postdlf (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We normally allow a list of characters for any sufficiently large fictional franchise--TV shows are normative, but series' of books are also handled similarly. In this case, we have a grey area: one book, with both TV and graphic novel adaptations. If we merge it to any one of the three articles (and the original novel makes the most sense), we risk losing the ability to discuss how certain characters differed in the various incarnations of the story. Still, that is a more valid option, per WP:ATD than deletion. I'm not familiar with the story, so I can't comment on whether the character bios are too long vs. need to be trimmed, but I agree with the editor who made the break-out list that this length of prose would heavily unbalance the main article on the book. Jclemens (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to The Stand, which currently has none of this information and so per WP:ATD takes deletion off the table. We really need to stop making AFD nominations in such circumstances. There has been absolutely no talk page discussion on this list regarding trimming it down or merging (or indeed, any discussion), so no one has even bothered to try normal editing and discussion before jumping the deletion gun, not even after a prod attempt was disagreed with. I don't question the nom's good faith here, but the use coercive procedures such as AFD to resolve editing issues before normal editing and discussion has even been attempted is one of the worst aspects of Wikipedia culture and probably one of the most discouraging to contributors. postdlf (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge (indifferent between deleting and keeping separate): the original version was a verbatim split, and no substantial changes have been made. There's no new content to merge. Flatscan (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Stand#Characters currently is empty except for a link to this list. But if you want to call it "restoring the content from that article's history" instead of "merging back", whatever. postdlf (talk) 05:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me to make sense to keep, simply because keeping the character list in its own article makes the parent article more concise, and therefore more readable. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a very appropriate split rfor a famous novel. I've tended to oppose such splits for routine works, but this is not a routine work. DGG ( talk ) 08:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep a very appropriate split rfor a famous novel. I've tended to oppose such splits for routine works, but this is not a routine work. DGG ( talk ) 08:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC) Exactly, I split the character like for the parent article to be more concise, and since there are already a TV-miniseries and comic book adaption, the list needs to be kept for new readers.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 01:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Full of intricate detail about fictional characters, no notability for the list itself established. However, disclaimer of spoilers is forbidden, per WP:SPOILER, yet copyrights of the novel The Stand may still apply. WP:PLOT may apply to a list of fictional characters. Even if the primary references determine the entries, I wonder if the list is necessary to be made. --George Ho (talk) 05:18, 10 January 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. Michig (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abel (programming language)[edit]

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

All that I can find for this programming language in searches is this article. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - A7, no claim of notability. Kuguar03 (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It certainly existed; see here. But I can't find enough citations of this or the related papers on the project to convince me of its lasting significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Played a minor role in the history of bounded quantification. See Benjamin C. Pierce, "Bounded quantification is undecidable", POPL '92. Probably deserves a (short) mentioning there. —Ruud 04:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Kuguar03. —Tim Pierce (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment A7 is "A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content)." and does not apply to this kind of articles. Christian75 (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - N significant coverage in reliable sources. It appears to have been part of some research project within HP. [8]. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 5 January 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 delete by Fastily (talk · contribs) under G11, as unambiguous advertising or promotion. (non-admin closure) Quasi human | Talk 22:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gonit Sora[edit]

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

This page seems to be a promotional page and is being edited by the operators of the website. The speedy deletion tags were removed twice, and so was the wikify tag.

Kindly see and decide. ~ DebashisM^Talk 19:24, 1 January 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. Michig (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

China Eastern Airlines Flight 586[edit]

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

fails to meet WP:Aircrash, notability, sources, press coverage etc. etc. Petebutt (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unfortunately. A relatively trivial incident, I see no claims of notabilty or lasting effect, any coverage in reliable sources seems routine. I am open to changing my !vote if more substantial coverage can be found. Quasi human | Talk 19:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands there is insufficient sourcing to meet the General Notability Guideline, and the (sketchy) description gives no indication that this was anything more than temporarily newsworthy. GraemeLeggett (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable incident.- William 12:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notbale as per WP:Aircrash, lack of content and sources in the article. --JetBlast (talk) 12:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources listed. Routine accident (I know I sound kind of sadistic...), probably doesn't even bear mentioning in China Eastern Airlines#Incidents and accidents.Buggie111 (talk) 14:14, 3 January 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. If anyone would like the contents userfied please just let me or another willing admin know. 7 04:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American Women's Role in The Cold War[edit]

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

PROD was removed by IP without comment. PROD rationale stands: "Fails WP:NOTESSAY - there are a lot of places this would be great, Wikipedia is not one of them." The piece also has the scent of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH about it. Overall, it's thoroughly unencyclopedic. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There appears to be less than 30 sources (General, book) about the subject of this article, and how much depth they go about the subject differs from source to source. That being said the subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG at this time. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While interesting, it does not seem to represent the mainstream view of this period of history. Sourced information on the effects of the Cold War on American society could be added to other articles. BigJim707 (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is possibly a viable topic for an article, but the current text is very simplistic and would need to be totally re-written Nick-D (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Certainly there are fairly big OR concerns here. This is a new contributor to WP and it is an earnest effort at covering a serious and probably encyclopedic topic. I'm inclined to suggest that this is a KEEP-AND-FIX situation as an encyclopedic topic, but I'm not 100% sure the topic is covered in the literature. Still, I'd bet it is. I have written a fairly long message to the content creator in the spirit of DON'T BITE THE NEWCOMERS and invited them to participate in the debate here. If they're willing, I'd suggest that stubbing out, userfying the content, and taking it from scratch might be the way to play it — assuming sources can be mustered. Again, I think they can, but I haven't looked. If they don't pop in here and aren't interested in doing this, I have no problems with a deletion as OR without prejudice to future recreation when sources can be properly mustered. Carrite (talk) 06:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that this may be a fork of something that already exists — but I don't know the title to search it. Basically the concept is the "redomestication" of women in the American economy during the 1946 to early 1960s interval. I'm positive there is a vast literature on this aspect of economic history. I just don't know what the phenomenon is formally called or if there is a standing WP piece on it. OR concerns of this piece here still stand, obviously... Carrite (talk) 06:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, there seems to be a huge hole here. Feminism has virtually nil on Women in the workplace, the closest thing I can find is Women's work, which is a fine topic, but has nothing to do with women in the workplace in WWII or their reintegration into domestic life during the post-war period. This is an absolutely enormous gap in WP's coverage. Carrite (talk) 06:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HERE is an OCLC title search for "Women in the Workplace." Not 2200+ book-hits ABOUT women in the workplace, but 2200+ books CALLED "Women in the Workplace"!!! I've got half a mind to spend two weeks on this myself, other than the fact that it's not my area of specialty and my own library is weak here. Unbelievable if there isn't some WP article out there that I'm missing... More evidence that this new content creator is TRYING to do the right thing filling in a gargantuan gap — they just accidentally crashed into the Original Research issue... Carrite (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thank god, I found Women in the workforce and just set up Women in the workplace as a redirect to that. That's a pretty crappy piece, but at least the topic is identified. Carrite (talk) 07:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article in its current form is obviously unsuitable for WP standards (as is the title), but as Carrite's excellent thinking points out, this is a needed and missing topic on Wikipedia (there is a general topic, but no daughter article). So, can we stub this with a list of references so that it's helpful to our readers without being in violation of our policies and guidelines? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you for all of the input everyone has on this subject. I appreciate the feedback. For everyone's knowledge, I wanted to provide reasoning for publishing this article. I noticed on Wikipedia the lack of information on this topic and I felt it should have an article. Whether it's mine or not, I don't really mind. I would really prefer to just edit this current article. I tried to provide reliable and academic sources to back up the information I was using. If someone were to add to it, they wouldn't have to start from a blank slate. Originally, this was written as a project for an AP World History class. Instead of full out deleting it, I feel that adjustments should just be made in order to keep the information on Wikipedia. Regarding the complaints on the article itself (Original Research, Synthesizing research, and writing in an essay format), I wasn't trying to break the Wikipedia guidelines, and as I stated before, I would rather someone alter it into the correct form instead of just contributing opinions and not solutions. I tried to edit the article so that it wasn't in the form of an essay, but as I sifted through the debate, it doesn't seem to have made a difference (if my revised article was read before the comments were posted). I've never written such a formal "article" or writing of such form. Furthermore, I'm not sure how someone could justify the deletions. I really wanted people to actually point out the flaws instead of just saying delete it. I'm sure it wasn't professional-sounding because I'm only a sophomore in high school. But I appreciate the amount of monitoring on this website. The experience was interesting and it proves how strict and accurate the information is. -Caroline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cesweaver96 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Caroline, thanks for dropping in. You've indeed identified a massive gap in Wikipedia's coverage. I've been thinking quite a lot about this matter this morning. I think the answer might be something like this: The so-called "encyclopedic topic" should probably be Women in the American workforce, which would be an occupational history of women in the American economy from colonial times to the present day; or perhaps Women in the 20th Century American workforce, which would have the benefit of being more focused. Within that there would be a periodization making use of subsections: WWII (1941-1945) being one and the "Cold War Period" as you, I think correctly, phrase it (1946-1964, give or take). Others will note this is essentially the period of what is called the "Baby Boom" — it's actually two manifestations of the same phenomenon, in which the women who entered the workforce during wartime were reintegrated (sometimes against their will) into "domesticity" — traditional "women's work" and "homemaking." Fans of old cinema probably are well versed on this theme, it was a broad cultural offensive. (more)

There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that there is a massive academic literature on these things. Your prose are not bad and you've done a good job identifying the basic characteristics of the time frame and trying to source things out. The problem is that the period standing alone, outside of coverage of both the wartime period before it and the "Women's Lib" (to borrow the phrase of the day) years which followed makes the material sound like something of a political essay. Framed in context, and maybe toned down here and there and sourced out a little better, I think things are pretty much on target. But the problem is now that the piece has been sucked into the AfD storm drain and it's sort of hard to get things from here to there. There is a process called "userfication," in which the closing administrator will port your article over to a somewhat hidden corner of your "user page" so that you won't lose your work. I think that maybe that's the best option from where we sit. Then we can establish a new page with an easily "defendable" title — Women in the American workforce, Women in the 20th Century American workforce, etc. — and we can reintegrate your work there, making sure it's in accord with NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW (do make sure to read and really understand the material found at that link!) Anyway, don't ever apologize for your age (there are plenty of solid contributors at WP and doubtlessly some administrators not yet in college), nor do you need to apologize for the quality of your work or your effort. Welcome to Wikipedia and don't be afraid to drop me a line at the TALK link which follows my signature if you'd like to discuss this strategy in more detail. Carrite (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and userfy and recreate basic ideas in a defendable encyclopedic context in accord with NPOV. I sold myself on this option (above) anyway. Carrite (talk) 18:20, 2 January 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 Aga Khan Education Services. If anyone wants to specifically mention this in the target article, go ahead, but be aware that, as Epefleeche points out, unsourced claims may be removed at any time. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aga Khan Primary School, Dar es Salaam[edit]

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

Primary schools are generally non-notable per wp standards, and subject to redirect. This seems to be one of those. Epeefleche (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:GNG or school guidelines.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to locality or school governing body per longstanding consensus. I'm also expressing concern with the large numbers of school nominations at the moment; it can't be expected that all editors be able to respond to this mass act of deletionist ideology. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aga Khan Education Services per usual procedure for primary schools. --MelanieN (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge as even the nominator wants to do. I'm not sure of the purpose of bringing these here instead of just boldly doing the merge/redirect, unless there's opposition to it. DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given the number of editors who wish to keep similar articles, and have !voted that way, and the absence from what I can see of a notability guideline that clearly gives the go-ahead on doing so, it seems to me that the less bold but more consensus-sensitive course is to make sure there is the opportunity for community input. Sysops can, of course, close any such AfD as a SNOW if consensus is clear. Even though I've seen a general consensus to not maintain stand-alone articles in these cases as a general matter (with exceptions; editors do differ on what makes a primary school notable), there is as we see even in this AfD often a difference of view as to whether the article should be a delete, a redirect, or a merge (even where the article lacks refs some editors call for this). And I've seen well over a dozen closes in the last few days of similar AfDs, where the consensus was delete, reflecting the consensus at the AfD. I'm happy to go with whatever the community-driven common consensus view is. With a clear guideline, I would be happy to be bolder, but without it I am hesitant to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epeefleche (talk • contribs) 06:35, January 10, 2012‎

Merge with Aga Khan Education Services. Dahliarose (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Hi Dahlia. Out of curiosity, are you suggesting that we merge content that is not RS-supported? I mention this because this article lacks any refs at all, let alone RS refs. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the procedure but there is certainly no requirement that content added to any Wikipedia article must be backed up in reliable sources. Even for "good" articles it's only a requirement that facts that can be challenged should be backed up by sources. Dahliarose (talk) 11:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the article is not backed by any refs at all, I challenge the information in it. I would not think a merger of this unreferenced text would be appropriate, and the discussion I've seen on the general topic suggests that perhaps we shouldn't merge unreferenced text -- though I think to get a clear sense as to whether there is a consensus on this issue, more discussion would be helpful. Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, and suggests that challenged unreferenced text is subject to deletion. At the same time, if merger is the resolution, I would support the merger of all appropriate RS-referenced text.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are only a couple of lines of content, none of which is controversial. Not every statement has to be backed up by a reliable source. The sentence about the school motto is trivial and need not be merged. Dahliarose (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had understood that all challenged information is required to be backed up by an RS ref, actually. It's not a big deal though, I would think -- any material information that can be RS sourced can be created at the target, with a proper ref.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:43, 11 January 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 Education in Tamil Nadu. However, I'll be opening a discussion on WP:Wikiproject Schools about the appropriateness of a redirect in cases like this; it may be that the redirect should be taken out later. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vani Nursery and Primary School[edit]

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

Primary and grade schools are generally non-notable per wp standards, and subject to redirect. This seems to be one of those. Epeefleche (talk) 21:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per standard practice for non-notable elementary schools. I am assuming there is no good redirect target, if there is that would also be fine, obviously.Carrite (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG or school guidelines.
Redirect/Merge to locality or school governing body per longstanding consensus. I'm also expressing concern with the large numbers of school nominations at the moment; it can't be expected that all editors be able to respond to this mass act of deletionist ideology. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as appropriate. No arguments have been given that this would be improper, so there's no reason to delete when there's a preferred alternative according to policy. (If this were purely a pre-primary school, however, I might perhaps want to argue that not even a redirect was appropriate.) DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 10 January 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 Timeless Miracle. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Into the Enchanted Chamber[edit]

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

Disputed prod with the assertion that it is popular. No reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Mattg82 (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless this album was named something different in Swedish and there's coverage under that name, I'm not seeing anything reliable to show that this passes notability guidelines at this time. I also couldn't bring up the website listed that was supposed to show how the album was popular, so that site's reliability is unknown at this time.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - I see no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - a redirect makes some sense. -- Whpq (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the band article as a plausible search term.--Michig (talk) 16:32, 8 January 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 (closing as snow/speedy). Neutrality^talk 22:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow to the knee[edit]

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

WP:NN neologism. Failed ((prod)) with 3 ((prod2)) endorsements when IP objected Toddst1 (talk) 17:58, 1 January 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) 18:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N. Cocoaguy ここがいい 19:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Somebody deprod'd this thing when it had 3 endorsements, somehow imagining it'd be kept? This piece of garbage fails pretty much every inclusion criteria we've got. There's not a WP:SNOWball's chance of it being kept, just delete it now instead of wasting time on a procedural AfD. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This should be so unambiguously evident I don't feel the need to come up with some complete argument. Salvidrim! 20:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a collection of jokes and catch phrases. BigJim707 (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N until it starts getting coverage in reliable, third party sources. Sergecross73 msg me 21:48, 1 January 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. Michig (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Elleore[edit]

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

Submitting for AfD after a declined speedy, with an endorsement from the declining admin to submit for AfD for lack of notability. This virtually unreferenced article is about an uninhabited 400 meter island with no electricity or water supply; its only real claim to notability is that it has produced coins and stamps, which is not in and of itself an indicator of notability. Horologium (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject: John Ryan; George Dunford; Simon Sellars (2006). Micronations. Lonely Planet Travel Guides. Lonely Planet. pp. 42–46. ISBN 1741047307. As an additional claim to notability, it is also the oldest of the current micronations. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One source (independent of subject)≠significant coverage. Almost all of the ghits I found were either blogs or personal websites, or groups whose reliability or expertise was of dubious provenance. That book is the only independent source in the article (and is in just about every micronation article on Wikipedia), and does not do much to establish notability. FWIW, the Lonely Planet series comprises travel guides, and any of their other publications would be deprecated as a source for real locations; I fail to see how this one differs in its reliability. Horologium (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See below, "Comment regarding the book source, Micro Nations: The Lonely Planet Guide to Home-Made Nations." Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Travel guides are usually pretty reliable about the things they claim to be reliable about. I see no evidence that "their other publications would be deprecated as a source for real locations": quite the opposite, I would have thought. Incidentally, Elleore is a real location, there's even a film about lion-hunting on the island. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Travel Guides are generally not considered to be reliable sources on the whole; there has been one substantial debate on the WP:RSN about travel guides as a whole (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 100#Travel guides as sources) and one on Lonely Planet in particular (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 102#Lonely Planet) in which the consensus seems to be that guidebooks such as these should be considered only "provisional" sources at best. As for the film on the island, it predates the establishment of the "nation" by about 37 years, and does not in any way establish notability for the article in question. I am not arguing for the deletion of an article about the island (which doesn't have an article of its own, not even an entry in List of Danish islands); I am arguing for the deletion of the article on the micronation Kingdom of Elleore, which doesn't meet our notability guidelines. Horologium (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed that you were disputing that this was a "real location". Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Elleore Island and merge a little bit of the "kingdom" to it. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per the book source quoted above in this discussion, and sources I've added to the article:

Vaccari, Andres (September 23, 2006). "Micronations". The Australian. Retrieved January 1, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Jardine Nick (December 26, 2011). "Check Out 10 Of Europe's Oddest Micronations". Business Insider. Retrieved January 1, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reference from The Australian is a review of the book which is being discussed above, and the single sentence discussing the "Kingdom of Elleore" does not qualify as substantial independent coverage. The blurb from Business Insider looks like it was pulled from Wikipedia (almost all of the images are from Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons), and seems to me to be a case of Wikipedia creating notability where none previously existed. Horologium (talk) 05:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I expanded the article with information from the Business Insider article (rewritten, of course, to eliminate plagiarism), which is likely why it may appear that information from the Business Insider "was pulled from Wikipedia", when actually it's likely vice-versa. Regarding the images used in the article sourced from Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons: that's Business Insiders right, per the licensing of the respective images. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book Micro Nations: The Lonely Planet Guide to Home-Made Nations by Lonely Planet mentions them, and this book gets reviewed by Digital Journal [9] which briefly mentions them as well. They are mentioned also in the book Micronations By John Ryan, Simon Sellars and George Dunford Lonely Planet Publications which is reviewed by The Australian [10] and mentions them being in it. Dream Focus 14:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do understand that both reviews are of the same book, don't you? You seem to be treating them as separate sources, when they are not. Since the book reviews simply mention The KoE, they are not about the country, they are about the book. They go a long way towards establishing the notability of the book (so an article about the book is supportable under policy), but they don't work as separate references to establish notability for the KoE. Horologium (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See my comment below, "Comment regarding the book source, Micro Nations: The Lonely Planet Guide to Home-Made Nations." Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient documentation, especially the book cited above, and the travel guides, satisfy me that this "Kingdom" has existed for many years and carries out a gentle spoof of Danish government in a typically Danish fun-loving way. The Danes were found to be the happiest nation, and this is just one more example of their wonderful national spirit. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The book is the travel guide. A search of Amazon books for "Elleore" returns only one hit—Micro Nations: The Lonely Planet Guide to Home-Made Nations by Lonely Planet. A Google Books search for "Kingdom of Elleore" finds five hits--the above book, a compilation book from the same publisher (Lonely Planet) which mentions it on a single page, two Wikipedia-scrape "books", and one book which mentions the "kingdom" in a footnote (the author's wife was a cousin of the first "king"). Horologium (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding the book source, Micro Nations: The Lonely Planet Guide to Home-Made Nations - Here's a quote from a review for this book: The Coolest Books of Fall 2006, from Digital Journal:

"More than a travel book, Micro Nations prefers to glorify these self-governments rather than mock them, describing in detail everything from land mass to cultural pursuits to visitor info. Intriguing photos and fascinating sidebars complement the snappy text."

Here's another quote from a book review in The Australian:

"Ostensibly a travel book, it turns out on closer inspection to be an exploration of the idea of nationhood. In our post-colonial, globalised times, some people see the nation as a myth, a mass delusion, a coercive dream. To others, a nation is the main source of identity, denoting a common history, culture and territory. Whatever the case, there is something arbitrary about national borders and the very idea of a nation.

Micronations celebrates an eclectic group of people who, for various reasons, have decided to start their own countries. The entries range from earnest attempts at creating new societies to humorous stunts to prove a point. What these countries have in common is that they began as acts of rebellion, expressions of dissatisfaction with the state of affairs on the "mainland". Their founders have used their own twist on nationhood as a form of protest, in many cases having to defend their territories against attempts at re-appropriation."

Per these reviews, which are very likely factual, the content of the book is much, much more than merely being a travel guide. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources provided are sufficient for the information present, and the topic is of significant interest in the ongoing provision of information concerning micronations, secession and the legal status thereof. In short, I see no reason why this article remains on discussion for deletion. Benjitheijneb (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has been expanded and additional "sources" (and I use the term loosely) have been added. The problem is that almost every source is based on a single book—Micro Nations: The Lonely Planet Guide to Home-Made Nations. There is the book itself, a review of the book in The Australian, and a page on the personal website of one of the authors of the book. The review of the book only has a single sentence relating to Elleore, which is nowhere near enough to qualify as "significant coverage". (Another review of the same book, cited above but not in the article, is equally vague as it relates to Elleore, and it's a review from a self-described "citizen-journalist and social media" site.) That leaves one other source, which is a one paragraph mention in a list of European micronations. WP:N requires "significant coverage", and we only have a single source with in-depth coverage of the article, the book. Multiple sources are expected (as per WP:N), and footnote 3 from the notability guideline is particularly relevant here: "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source." Heavy reliance on a single book does not make for a strong argument to retain this article. Horologium (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficiently referenced to meet WP:GNG RadioFan (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has sufficient RS substantial coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:34, 8 January 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. Kubigula (talk) 02:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeannine Taylor[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT. I searched and found one secondary source announcing her marriage in 1990 ([11]). Bbb23 (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While her brief film carrer seems to fail WP:ENT, it appears she also had a stage career,[12] but seems to have left acting after her marriage. Are theatrical reviews available? Barring that, I think is reasonable to redirect to Friday the 13th as the one place where readers really might expect to find her in context to that film and her sourcable character of Marcie in scenes with Kevin Bacon.[13][14][15][16] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that, too, but my search revealed nothing about her in Google News. It's possible that more searching might come up with something. I'm also not sure how notable her stage appearances were.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I didn't find anything better in my searches to indicate WP:N. I'm not sure redirecting would be appropriate here: if the subject is not notable, then page history is of little value, and the utility of the direct is negligible. JFHJr (㊟) 20:28, 7 January 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 delete. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HMAK[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. I can't find anything in secondary sources on HMAK. Everything in article is based on his own website. Bbb23 (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my search didn't reveal the degree of independent note or record contracts or chart positions, that would qualify this musician for a wikipedia BLP - Youreallycan (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable. 76.248.147.199 (talk) 16:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't show any evidence of meeting our notability requirements. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yes there is not established WP:Notability and none of WP:Reliable sources are available. Justice007 (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of completeness, this article was mentioned on the biographies of living persons noticeboard by a user who claimed to know the subject, and who said the article was defamatory. The article was in a vandalized state, so I reverted back to a much shorter version that was a year older, and this is the version that was nominated. You can look at subsequent versions in the article history if you wish to see how the article developed. Having said all that, I agree the subject does not meet Wikipedia standards for notability under WP:GNG or WP:BAND, and the article should be deleted. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non note. Quinn ^➳WINDY 19:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - musician with no credible assertion of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - A7 per Orangemike, so tagged. ukexpat (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Satchiko Riko[edit]

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

Non-notable cosplayer; no third party citations to assert notability. Awards appear to be local/trivial. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I'd say a pretty clear cut G7, nothing to show notability and basically a vanity piece which doesn't have a place here. tutterMouse (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I assume that tutterMouse means A7 above (G7 is for when the author requests deletion). An admin has already declined an A7 nomination for this article, so I think it's unlikely to be speedy deleted under that criterion now. Quasi human | Talk 19:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did mean A7, G7 is something very different I know. I don't really think that the "awards" confer anything so I'd argue the admin's refusal was a terrible choice. Outside of that, there's literally nothing and I think you have to be an exceptionally well known cosplayer to pass GNG going by the other BLPs for cosplayers. tutterMouse (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the admin who declined the speedy, I should point out that the rules on speedy deletion are very clear - articles that make credible assertion of notability (note that references are not required) are not to be speedy deleted under A7. As to whether or not the awards themselves are credible enough is subject to debate. So I see it when there is a potential for debate to pass it on to AFD where the debate may take place. I would be happy to discuss your thoughts on my approach on my talk page rather than discuss my actions in this AFD. Stephen! ^Coming... 22:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, Stepthen. tutterMouse (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Stephen! ^Coming... 22:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no reliable sources. SL93 (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability. Vincelord (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is trivial. Subject is not notable. Jun Kayama 19:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable source. The awards are no significant. -- Whpq (talk) 17:40, 5 January 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 digital media receiver. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 01:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Network Media Player[edit]

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

Contested prod. Upcoming product/software (not clear from the wording of the article). No assertion of pre-release notability, violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This looks like it is just a renaming of digital media receiver. I don't think that it is for any one company in specific, just digital receivers in general. It's already well covered at DMR as it is.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

I don't see anything here that really needs to be merged, but a redirect from this title might not be a bad idea.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Keep It's basically a Generic article. I guess it can help as a parent article. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The only problem is that this is all covered in digital media receiver. There's nothing here that isn't already covered and covered better in DMR. Keeping this would just be redundant.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

* Comment In that case, simply redirect this there. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Digital Media Receiver as stated by User:TokyoGirl179. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to digital media receiver. There isn't any content worth merging. -- Whpq (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect' to Digital Media Receiver, as stated by User:TokyoGirl179, and User:Whpq. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:50, 11 January 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 List of schools in Karachi. (non-admin closure) Tarheel95 (Sprechen) 19:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indus Academy[edit]

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

Primary/middle school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 21:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage to demonstrate that subject is notable. Seems like run-of-the-mill. Neutrality^talk 23:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 15:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of schools in Karachi. Run-of-the-mill school, non-notable. Buggie111 (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to locality or school governing body per longstanding consensus. List of Schools in Karachi would not be an appropriate article to which this can be redirected. It should be redirected to an education section of a relevant locality. I'm also expressing concern with the large numbers of school nominations at the moment; it can't be expected that all editors be able to respond to this mass act of deletionist ideology. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge as usual. There is no reason to ever completely delete an article on a verifiable elementary school. (Thjere is usually no reason to keep it as a separate article either; fortunately we do have a way of dealing with these.) DGG ( talk ) 08:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query. Is it appropriate to merge text where -- as here -- it is wholly unreferenced, let alone referenced by RSs (though it does have an EL)? I'm curious what the general rule is. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (blank, and merge any useful content) to List of schools in Karachi per usual practice. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world), or as in this case, to a list. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the ((R from school)) template on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:55, 10 January 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. Kubigula (talk) 05:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aram Alnashéa[edit]

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

I am having difficulty finding sufficient indicia of notability of this 21-year-old DJ, music producer, label owner, and song writer. Others are welcome to try. Tagged for notability since early 2010. Also tagged as an orphan since 2010, as zero articles link to it. Epeefleche (talk) 07:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -but only so that someone with more knowledge about this "artist" will have the opportunity to re-write this article so it doesnt look like a CV for a atelyperson.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that is not a valid reason to retain a non-notable article.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any significant coverage or any reliable sources covering the subject.--Michig (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I have added many references to the article, in answer to the colleague Michig. Also rectified the tone and some of the non-encyclopedic claims of the article. I also think the article should be under Stana (DJ) rather than Aram Alnashéa werldwayd (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 23:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, none of the sources that you added appear to constitute significant independent coverage in reliable sources, which will be needed to demonstrate notability.--Michig (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even the "improved" article fails to convince me there is anything notable about this person. Michig is quite right when he says that the added sources do not constitute RS, but the article itself does not really suggest that any such sources can even exist. Why should they? Look at some of the detail: "When he turned 18 he released his first record" - did anyone buy it? "He has also released tracks..." Did anyone buy them? "He had his first international gig in England" = he appeared in England (did anyone go?). "developing himself as an international DJ" = see previous. "The British magazine Core Mag named him in September 2009 as one of the newcomers in the Hard Dance scene" = so what, he was a newcomer. Was he any good? Who says so? Again and again this article seeks to boost by innuendo the status of someone who, if we look to reliable sorces, doesn't break the horizon. Emeraude (talk) 23:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Im still standing by my Keep !vote.. nothing in this AfD discussion has convinced me that this article shouldnt be kept. Or at the least been kept via a No Consensus for now.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- werldwayds added references convinced me even further that this article should be kept.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - References do not support a keep determination, if they are not significant independent coverage in reliable sources, which we do not have here.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 15:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree that the minimum standard of extensive independent coverage has not been met in this case, even with improvements. Dawn Bard (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The improvements to the article convince me that this is a working DJ, but not one that currently meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 17:45, 5 January 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) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lagos Preparatory School[edit]

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

Primary schools are generally non-notable per wp standards, and subject to redirect. This seems to be one of those. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 21:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 15:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Obviously a unique school, and yes, there is puffery, but AfD is not cleanup. Unscintillating (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Un. I agree that afd is not for cleanup. This school was nominated because of the aforementioned convention re such schools. Furthermore, I was unable to find substantial RS coverage of a sort that would lead us to treat it differently than we treat all primary schools at AFD that lack independent substantial RS coverage that demonstrates why the school should be treated differently than the others. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're flat out wrong. There is no convention to delete primary/elementary schools, there is a common practice to merge non-notable primary/elementary schools to their localities. There is a clear claim to notability in this article. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Convention" means -- as used here -- "general practice". The convention referred to above was that such pages generally do not attract stand-alone wp pages if they lack independent substantial RS coverage that demonstrates why the school should be treated differently than others. The consensus on this AfD, so far, is in line -- though editors who agree that it should not be a stand-alone article on the primary school are split as to whether it should be deleted, redirected, merged, or changed into a larger article that includes the school but is not a stand-alone article solely on the school.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:GNG or current school guidelines.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The article asserts the notability of the school with references as the only school in Africa to be accredited as part of COBIS and to have met the British DfE's standards for overseas schools. This clearly makes the case for WP:GNG. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What, precisely, is the language you read in that ref that supports that statement?--Epeefleche (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The school is the only British School in Africa to be a member of both the Independent Association of Prep Schools (IAPS) and an accredited member of the Council of British International Schools (COBIS). In February 2011 the school became the first British School in Africa to meet the DfE's new standards for British Overseas Schools following an inspection by the Independent Schools Inspectorate (ISI)

References removed, emphasis added.

This wording isn't very ambiguous. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not being clear. I didn't ask what you read in the text of the article. I asked what you read in the ref.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder -- I didn't ask what you read in the text of the article. I asked what you read in the ref. I'm curious as to your response. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy deletion~~ due to major copyvio concerns as stated here. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of that report is particularly damning in terms of a school article. There aren't many ways to paraphrase the content mentioned in that report. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 01:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

25, 14, 9, 8, 7, 5 and 5 words exactly the same, and no chance of rephrasing that? If the name of the school was involved in any of the 7 cases, I would have agreed, but that is not the case. At least it is too close paraphrasing! Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you're being overly sensitive, but fixed. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, just strict. (Ow, still cases left of 18, 8, 7 and 5 words.)Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you genuinely think that there are copyvio concerns, you could take this over to the relevant noticeboarsd. You're being pedantic, so I'll leave the article to whomever can write more expertly than I. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was never any confirmation that there were copyvio issues, these were or are copyvio concerns. What I've heard is that the copyright people are not strict about revdel of copyright issues, even when they are confirmed. Meanwhile, AfD is not cleanup. Unscintillating (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep/merge to new article even a preparatory schools can be notable, especially in the case of international schools, but in the absence of positive evidence it would be preferable to merge to a combination article on Nigerian international schools when one is written. The best way of doing this is to keep this and retitle it fas the first section , & then look for others. As for copyvio, there is none at present. Copyvio is not a concern after if has been rewritten, though we of course wouldn't keep an article mainly consisting of copyvio unless we did rewrite it. I agree it is not our practice to rev delete unless the copyright holder specifically asks for it. DGG ( talk ) 17:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An obviously notable school, known internationally, and there is only one requirement in WP:N, that topics be "worthy of notice". Nomination fails many points, including that there is no argument for deletion, and no review of potential merge targets. I'd also note that an 8th grade education in Africa means more than in developed countries. Article has detailed references from Britain that are sufficient to write an article. Unscintillating (talk) 07:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your remark about detailed references is interesting. When I looked upon them I got the following results:
  1. Independent Association of Prep Schools (ref nr. 3): no details, school looks unknown
  2. Department for Education (ref nr. 5): one blank page on the school. Inspection report only confirm that the school exist. Not an independent reliable source (I guess the Department for Education only inspects the school when she finances it)
  3. Cobis (ref nr. 4): Only a short description. Note: I do not know the value of a Cobis accreditation and how independent she is.
  4. ISE (ref nr. 6): School report. In effect the same source as nr. 2 (Departemnt of Education).
  5. Lagos Preparatory School, Ikoyi (ref nr. 1 and 2): schoolwebsite. Not independent.
- If and if the school is notable, it will be because of the Cobis accreditation. All other are in my opinion not the requiered reliable third party sources. Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've done a nearly complete rewrite to incorporate, I believe, most of the concerns expressed on this AfD page. I've introduced an Infobox as well, and provided geographic coordinates.
— Objectivesea (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, the article now reads like an advertisement... Night of the Big Wind _talk 03:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're being oversensitive and nitpicky. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you have nothing to better to do then attacking me instead of my arguments...
    - Removed promo and irrelevant information. Article ius still in desperate need of truly independent sources, but It can get the benefit of the doubt now. Night of the Big Wind _talk 05:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - keep Did anyone of the defenders actually look for independent sources? I do not think so, because I could find some quite easily. But it made me change my mind. It is still weakly sourced, but I guess there will be more available on the internet. Night of the Big Wind _talk 05:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        You're right! The nominator should have done an RS search per WP:BEFORE and/or WP:Guide to Deletion#Considerations before nominating! Good point! After all, this is WP:RD, isn't it? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 09:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Don't be so damning victorious, it was your failure too. If you had done your job properly, you had found the sources and added them. Epeefleche was right in his action to nominate it, because the burden of proving notability lies with the author, not with him. He did WP:BEFORE correctly when he had looked at the available sources and found them all unclear/not third party sources. Besides that, in general primary schools are considered not notable, unless proven otherwise. You failed to proof the notability of the school too, so stop cheering and to some selfreflection focused on the point how you could have handled this more efficient and friendlier! Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are sufficient sources to prove notability and Objectivesea has done an excellent job improving the article. Dahliarose (talk) 23:06, 10 January 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. I'm persuaded, albeit through no fault of the article, that the topic is notable. Mackensen (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Buccaneer[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD. This article contains no assertion of notability. Phil Bridger (talk · contribs) contested the PROD stating that "the external links are assertions of notability." The external links are just a collection of contemporary news sources; I don't see how that asserts anything. Unique Google hits by my reckoning are less than 10,000: there's a proposed World War II operation of the same name as well. Mackensen (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is unclear what the nominator means here by "assertion of notability". There is no requirement for articles to explicitly say that their subjects pass the general notability guideline, which this clearly does with many readily-available reliable sources such as [17], [18] and [19]. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize; I thought that term of art was commonly understood. Nowhere does the article explain why its topic is important. It's a recounting of a series of arrests, some pull quotes, and a long list of Warez people. It's barely an article. Just because a topic was covered in a news source at some point doesn't make it notable. It may well be notable; but there's nothing in that article that explains why it would be. Mackensen (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - What matters in a deletion discussion is whether the topic actually is notable, which is a different concept from importance, not how well either notability or importance is explained in the article, which can be fixed by editing rather than deletion. The sources that I linked above are not news sources, but books from academic publishers and a peer-reviewed journal article. Plenty more such sources can be found here and here. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 1 January 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. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Games Fleadh[edit]

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

No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources. Zero hits on the title in Google News or Google Books. Some hits on Google search but sources are either primary or press releases by involved parties. RadioFan (talk) 15:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a bit surprised this has come to AfD. I've added a few references - anyone can add more as the event is annual and widely reported so there are numerous industry reports, university newsletters etc. The Fleadh is Ireland's main game development event so it seems obviously notable; the links at the top turn up numerous reliable, independent sources. I think it will also be fine to use the official website for facts though obviously not to assert notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:03, 1 January 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. Jujutacular ^talk 21:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ryu Watabe[edit]

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

Video game voice actor. No evidence of notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not sure how this affects the notability of the person, but this The New York Times article says that he wrote Parappa's lyrics, so he's not just a voice actor. Quasi human | Talk 23:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any reliable third-party coverage to verify notability. --DAJF (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 11:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm almost certain that, but for sourcing, we'd be able to justify this one. But I can't keep with just the one article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. Personally, I think it's likely that there was coverage about him in game mags, especially Japanese ones, but PaRappa the Rapper was released in 1996, before most of these magazines were published online, so sourcing is likely to be hard to find. We can't keep this article just because I have a hunch that there are more sources out there. I'll have another look for sources. Quasi human | Talk 13:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:V is quite explicit and clear; we cannot keep an article just on the unfounded supposition that reliable sources must exist out there, somewhere, which discuss the subject in "significant detail." We can only sustain an article if such sources are produced. They have not been. Ravenswing 10:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and per Ravenswing. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:30, 12 January 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. Michig (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Career-Eco[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this website. Being on two local news channels does not show notability. Anyway, the links to the news videos are dead links. Fails WP:WEB. SL93 (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is barely asserted, never mind established with reliable sources. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:43, 1 January 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 13:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that there is no meaningful assertion of notability here, and the coverage doesn't amount to signifant coverage. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Even though the local news cast links are dead, I'll accept that they had local coverage. But a bit of local coverage does not equate to notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:49, 5 January 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 Worldwide Faith Missions. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mission of Mercy Magazine[edit]

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

PROD tag removed by OP. As Admin, I restored a hasty speedy and told the editor to work on sources with time in a PROD. He removed it instead. Article is a bout a religious magazine with no ghits other than its own and social media (facebook and blogs). The links the OP provided do not address the notability issue, commenting on the founder and not on why the organization is notable. Seems to me it's just one more church-related charitable organization with its own advertising media (the magazine). Alexf^(talk) 12:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OP. No notability. Just a marketing/promotional arm of a church. -- Alexf^(talk) 21:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was the editor who originally nominated this for speedy delete. Nothing's changed since then - no claim of notability and no independent sources. Like Alexf I wasn't able to find any evidence in my own research that suggests this could be a notable topic. Kuguar03 (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have researched other articles about magazines. The articles in many fields including art http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_magazines seem to be equally unsourced similar to this article under discussion. I used their format when creating this page. Perhaps most of them should be deleted--some have been listed for years. It is rare to find news sources that would give a magazine some notablility. Thus said, efforts should be made to improve this magazine article and thousands of others. รัก-ไทย (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they should be deleted, but that's not relevant to this discussion. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. If "It is rare to find news sources that would give a magazine some notablility(sic)" then it follows that they may not be notable. Kuguar03 (talk) 08:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Worldwide Faith Missions. According to my reading this is a periodical solely to promote the work of the mission, and thus best covered in the course of its article. Almost every missionary society has such a publication, and they are almost invariably subsidiary activities concerned with fund raising for the mission. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Peterkingiron for a sensible, non-biased opinion. As author of the article, I have researched many NGO articles and observed that their official magazines do not have a separate article. Perhaps his advice is the most relevant. Also, apologies to the administrator for a deletion of his notice--a mistake of the head and not of the heart. รัก-ไทย (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Peterkingiron. -- Whpq (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge as suggested--avery simple solution; this should be the general recourse for the newsletter of a notable organization. DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Peterkingiron. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:32, 12 January 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. Michig (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bunheads[edit]

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

This is not a television series. It is just a non-notable television pilot which is still in development. Unlike the claim in the article, it is not a series, and there is no known premiere date (or year). I can find no sources that state otherwise. This article is very premature, and casting is apparently still in progress. There is a good chance the pilot will never be picked up to series. Logical Fuzz (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 11:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a search and I'm not really bringing up enough sources to really show how this would pass notability guidelines. There's a little bit of buzz about the casting, but not enough to really show how an unfilmed tv pilot is notable, especially one that hasn't officially been picked up for a season yet. I removed some of the more silly parts of the article, such as what the casting calls are looking for (since we're not a casting call directory) and the stations that the show might show on if it gets picked up outside of the USA. There's no reason for that to be in the article at all, so I removed it. In any case, this is a pretty clear case of WP:CRYSTAL. It's very common for a pilot to get made but then never get greenlit for an actual series. There's more unmade series with a pilot than many would really think. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Delete. I agree with Tokyogirl79. TV articles are fine, when a TV show actually airs and lasts more than a few episodes/has notable actors or characters. — WylieCoyote (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Tokyogirl79 has clearly expressed why this article cannot be kept and I have nothing further to add. -- Whpq (talk) 17:53, 5 January 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 all. Scarlet Memorial: Tales Of Cannibalism In Modern China, mentioned as a special case for potential retention after improvement, has not been edited since the AfD began. Sandstein 17:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1900 National Upheaval[edit]

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

These book articles were created by User:Arilang1234 who is now indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. I'm nominating the following books for deletion because they lack notability according to Wikipedia:Notability (books), and they lack third party notability according to Google

I am also nominating the following related pages for similar reasons:

According to Notability (books), these books aren't subject to multiple significant coverage that describe the books themselves rather than the events they tell. For example, the page on 1900 National Upheaval tells the events of the Boxer Rebellion rather than the book's reception and writing etc. As such these books should not exist as independent articles, but should be used sources on the pages of the events they describe. The user has previously created similar articles such as Divine Boxing: The real Yihetuan and 1901: The shadow of an Empire, which were deleted for notability reasons, as the authors wrote exclusively in Chinese, and even then their notability in Chinese is dubious. As such, I think these articles should be deleted or redirected to the articles on their subject--LucasGeorge (talk) 11:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as per nom. Certainly, if the books are useful as reliable sources, they could be used as such in the relevant articles - but the notability isn't there for articles about the books themselves. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I did a pretty thorough search for sources on these books and even in Chinese I'm not seeing much discussion of them. The only one that might be salvigable is Scarlet Memorial: Tales Of Cannibalism In Modern China. I found two reviews of the book from editorial sources: here and here but they're not great. Pol430 talk to me 23:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, unless Scarlet Memorial: Tales Of Cannibalism In Modern China can be saved with the refs provided above - then delete all but that one. I agree with the nom's reasoning that, while these books cover notable events, they are not notable themselves. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 13:45, 6 January 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 delete per A7 by NawlinWiki. I'm also going to suggest salting this, as it has been created three times in the last week. (NAC) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 01:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

J BRITO[edit]

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

Although the assertions in the article may meet WP:MUSICBIO the single dubious source cannot verify these claims. Unable to find any more reliable sources. WP:GNG not met. Pol430 talk to me 11:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. I've nominated it for a speedy delete as a blatant hoax. It's just a modified copy of the Fito Blanko article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, my Spidey-senses said hoax. I should have listened to them. Pol430 talk to me 18:15, 1 January 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. Kubigula (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Warshauer[edit]

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

The subject was a borderline case when it was created, and it's still a borderline case nearly four years later. She appears to be an "up and coming" musician whose career hasn't really panned out yet. She did release an album on Island Records, but it appears to have come and gone without much fanfare. She has worked with some notable musicians, but I don't believe that she is notable in her own right. I was hoping that either the article or her career would show some progression by now, but that hasn't happened. Again, this is a borderline subject, but I believe it falls on the wrong side of WP:MUSIC, and I doubt that it can be improved anytime soon (or will be). --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above, also, article's sources are only of the singer herself. A quick Internet search shows that sources about her are mostly unreliable sources--Hallows AG 10:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' - She's received some notice, but not enough to meet the inclusion criteria. - Whpq (talk) 17:56, 5 January 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. Jujutacular ^talk 19:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Central American and Caribbean Age Group Championships records[edit]

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

The whole sporting age-group is not notable on WP, so why should the records be notable? Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HurricaneFan 25 — 00:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The reason that nobody has joined this discussion may well be that the statement, "the whole sporting age-group is not notable on WP", is pretty close to incomprehensible. It seems that the nominator has doubly misunderstood the precedent that individual junior athletes do not have the same presumed notability as athletes in high-level adult competitions. That precedent only applies to articles about athletes, not other articles about athletics, and does not even preclude junior athletes from being regarded notable if they get through the general notability guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep – The nomination states that all articles about a group of topics are entirely non-notable, then states that this article isn't notable due to an opinion about other articles, all while not qualifying the rationale why this particular article should be deleted. No assertion based upon policies or guidelines qualifying the article's deletion has been provided. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:40, 2 January 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/Nomination withdrawn. I can see that this isn't going either way any time soon, and the default is to keep. Non-admin closure. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoppál Bulcsú[edit]

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

This one's a bit complicated. The article was submitted in Hungarian, then listed at WP:PNT where it remained untranslated after two weeks. As is the usual practice in the translation department, the article was prodded. But because the prod nominator had used the wrong acronym in the deletion rationale, the reviewing admin declined the prod. That admin realized his mistake, however, but cited the possibility that this individual might be notable, and that a machine translation might be a good starting point for an article. Personally, I agree that it could be done; however, GScholar returns nothing on this individual, and GNews returns only three hits, one of which is actually something he wrote. Though it's not hopeless, it's not quite enough to pass WP:BIO just yet. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 05:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although I offered to rewrite this in English and , quite possibly, show notability as meeting WP:PROF as an expert on Aquinas (his publisher is the leading French academic publisher, which has a branch in Budapest, which is why I was willing to try it--I wouldn't have offered otherwise) , the nom., knowing this, insisted on nominating it anyway without first giving me a chance. GScholar and GNews are not noted for their coverage of Hungarians religious scholars, and the absence of material there is irrelevant. Myself, I can't actually judge until there's a chance to present it properly. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- If we can get it tidied up, we should do not, not delete merely because this was not done fast enough. Hope DGG can do that. I cannot as I do not speak Hungarian! Peterkingiron (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of the lack of sources found in the search. As an academic, he's a suitable article topic if we get no sources, so recreation would be good if more are found after AFD. Nyttend (talk) 14:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has been translated and formatted. And although there's still only one reliable secondary source we should give this a try per DGG's comments on Hoppal's expertise. De728631 (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:36, 1 January 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. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (speak) 20:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honda Euro Sport[edit]

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

This is a review, not a usefull article. Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. The article is in bad shape, but this is a notable subject, it doesn't reach the level at which blowing it up and starting over would be necessary, and AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is already an article on Honda VT500 series which mentions the Euro model, and is rather clearer than this article.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 23:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Honda VT500, which is standard practice for sub-models of a vehicle model line. If, later on, sufficient quality material about the Euro Sport grows so large that the VT500 article becomes unwieldy, we can spawn a sub-article, as per Wikipedia:Summary style. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have tidied it up. Biscuittin (talk) 21:15, 3 January 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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 11:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin close endorsed but a speedy renomination is allowed per WP:NPASR. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Sa-rang (singer)[edit]

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

Unreferenced. No evidence of notability and no assertion of notability. No evidence of any chart hit or sales of any sort Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Found profile on 3 Korean search sites: Naver, Nate and Daum. I found some articles to him too. Jae ₩on (Deposit) 02:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:18, 1 January 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. In addition, the article will be salted. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Barsi[edit]

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

Article was previously redirected to the Judith Barsi article as it rather apparent that the subject does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER or any other notability inclusions. However, one user, Monsterpose43, has restored the article twice without giving a reason why so I'm bringing it here. In short, the subject was seemingly the mother of a notable subject but was not notable herself. The information in the current article is merely repeated in the Judith Barsi article. Suggest deletion or, again, redirecting to the daughter's article. Pinkadelica ^♣ 05:07, 1 January 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 January 1. Snotbot t • c » 05:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject fails WP:GNG and article is nothing more than WP:MEMORIAL. Google search only produces results for Judith Barsi and links to other memorial sites. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:VICTIM. If some sort of admin lock can be put on it, I would be OK with a redirect to Judith Barsi where there exists adequate coverage of her role/relationship. Location (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Relies heavily on inherited notability from Judith Barsi. Agree with User:Location that a redirect to Judith Barsi is OK. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both WP:VICTIM and WP:INHERIT. The murder wouldn't have been notable at all had it not been for Judith Barsi's notability; and as the victim of a non-notable murder, Maria Barsi would have been doubly non-notable. I wouldn't even support a redirect: it seems highly unlikely that anyone would be trying to find out about MB if they didn't already know about JB; and the presence of a redirect would undoubtedly lead to well-meaning editors' Wikilinking MB within the JB article. Ammodramus (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW, WP:INHERIT, WP:MILL, and WP:NOTNEWS. The article has been listed for deletion for almost two weeks without a defender. Sadly, murder rates peaked in the late 1980s; they were run-of-the-mill during that time. The only reason she's famous is because her daughter was murdered. A Google news search reveals no substantive news stories after four months; this indicated there was no lasting effect of the crime. There is not a single reliable source to prove she is notable for any reason. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 12 January 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. Userfication available upon request. Jujutacular ^talk 05:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of hard science fiction films and television[edit]

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

The article seems to be a completely arbitrary list of random fiction, that are only tied together by a list of "rules" that seem to have no justification aside from what the author made up himself. The actual article on Hard science fiction itself contains no such rules, and the only source listed is a single book that links to its page to purchase from Amazon. The article thus seems to be Wikipedia:Original Research, and fails Wikipedia:Notability. Rorshacma (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2011 (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/2011 December 22. Snotbot t • c » 20:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article contains seemingly arbitrary rules for classifying something as 'Hard' Sci-Fi. Without several references agreeing on a particular way to split hard from soft science fiction this list is really just opinion. You could even argue that the article breaks it's own rules as some form of FTL or teleportation appears to have occurred at the end of 2001: A Space Odyssey, and yet this movie was included in the list.--Stvfetterly (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Arbitrary. Neutrality^talk 21:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy Some of these rules may have come out of the source below, but even then, I agree with Stvfetterly that some agreement of what is classified as hard science fiction needs to be determined beyond just a single source per WP:LISTN: A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. The author might consider a complete rewrite of this list based on what is written in the sources found at Hard science fiction. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ see below. on the grounds that the topic is adequately covered in the article Hard Science Fiction which has a list of "Representative works". Also it looks v much like Original Research. I quite enjoyed reading it, but sorry... Tigerboy1966 (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The section with "Representative works" in the article Hard Science Fiction does not list any films. In principle the content of an article like this should be mergeable to that article to form a new subsection "Films", and indeed such a subsection could be a valuable addition. Altogether I'm not averse to "merge and redirect". I have a bit of a problem, though, with the criteria and choices here, which have a high OR character. The essential criterion for SF being "hard", in my opinion, is twofold: (1) science plays an essential role in the plot, and (2) the science of the story is compatible with (a sufficiently plausible extrapolation of) known science. So no magic, ESP, perpetua mobilia, and warp drives. But Higgs bosons, although today not "known" science, would be OK. But part (1) is also needed, and for example Brazil and Fight Club fall short on (1). --Lambiam 22:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Do not delete. Edit.~~ Many thanks for your comments. I will take a closer look at the sources found at Hard science fiction. I agree that the article I started is not fully developed, but not arbitrary or original research. I wrote it when I found links to miscellaneous sub-genres of science fiction film on List of science-fiction films but not to sci fi productions that generally tried to avoid breaking the laws of physics. Rather than delete the article, please consider contributing to it if you think that there is such a thing as a hard sci fi sub-genre. I do not mean the article to trash soft sci fi, by the way, as I love Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, and Star Trek, et al. To start the article, I provided criteria (to be discussed and modified), a section for exemptions, and a list of films/ shows that seemed to represent the sub-genre, and a justification for each. Reviewing the list of films in List of science-fiction films, I saw that there was flexibility in what counts as sci fi and that there is a lack of distinction between science fiction and fantasy, at the very least. I believe that providing criteria and a justification (plus exceptions) for each film, that the hard sci fi list can be more than a long, arbitrary, catch-all list. Regarding 2001, I would include the comment as an exception in the "justification" and note that it happens right at the end of the film with other soft SF Hollywood bells, whistles, and handwavium--it is an imperfect world. To quote Hard science fiction, "There is a degree of flexibility in how far from "real science" a story can stray before it leaves the realm of hard SF." The page would be improved by adding references to film and literature criticism; however, please bear in mind that it is primarily a list and that it already refers to Hard science fiction, where there is a discussion of hard versus soft. Given that this new article links to the Wiki page for each film and provides a description of what justifies its hard sci fi designation, I believe it to be at least as well referenced as the list of representative novels on Hard science fiction; both lists can be improved and referenced if it is true that there is a hard sci fi sub-genre in both literature and film. I specifically prepared the criteria to avoid overlap with space opera (requiring FTL travel) and films about superheros, time travel, and magic. Again, I appreciate the time you spent reviewing the list. If it does get deleted, I hope that you or someone else will create a better list for the hard science fiction sub-genre. I believe there are enough films to populate the list and that the sci fi community has a sense of the distinctiveness of the sub-genre and can select appropriate works. I did my best as a novice article-writer; it was a sincere effort to fill a void.
Comment. I agree with your two points, Lambiam. I got distracted when I saw Brazil on List of science-fiction films. Fight Club and V for Vendetta can be deleted too, unless somebody recalls any "Cutting edge Present Day Tech…some developments and speculation, but nothing major that has not been attained today…very near future." (Ref, [[20]]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woods1630 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Merge as film section of Hard Science Fiction, in line with User:Lambian's perceptive comments. The point is that while the items in a list don't need sourcing, the criteria do; and the HSF article is the natural home for those. And the list requires strict pruning down to hard SF, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Chiswick Chap's merge suggestion looks fine to me, striking delete.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is really a WP:Soapbox to rail against the low standards of popular science fiction type material. I am sympathetic but it does not belong in an encyclopedia. Notable listed items should be mentioned in Hard science fiction itself. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Chiswick Chap. Jclemens (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The term is basically used as an inclusive genre term, or critical perspective, for some SF writing. its not used for films, for the most part, at least to give them a firm category or genre. its not a genre of film. the inclusion criteria here are completely absurd, baseless, not sourced, thus arbitrary and completely subjective. the list, of course, is so small as to be meaningless, and I can guarantee that for many editors, 20k/sea and v/vendetta would never be considered as Hard SF. To be honest, for real fans of SF, there are practically no hard sf films, period. There are films which use hard sf tropes, or themes, to flesh out their story, but the stories are not driven by narrowly defined technical parameters. the closest film to hard sf is Apollo 13, which of course isnt sf. Maybe there is one hard sf film, The Quiet Earth (film), but its not based on verifiable science.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edit or Merge. I have updated the list. If half of the entries are removed, I believe there are enough to indicate that hard SF is a legitimate sub-genre of film as well as literature. If the criteria are restricted to current technology and verifiable science, it is true, that there might be no films at all. I do not agree that the criteria are absurd or baseless if hard SF is taken as fiction based on plausible technologies or scenarios. If there is only one hard SF film, then I agree that there is no basis for a film sub-genre. Rather than creating a soapbox from which to rail against the more fantasy-based sci fi that I also enjoy, I hoped the list to include films that made a special effort to be realistic. In terms of what is on the list, I feel least comfortable with the biological/ apocalyptic/ zombie and near-future social-change material; for some of those I make reference to the List of science-fiction films to argue that they might be sci fi and to [[21]] to argue that some might be considered "Present Day Tech Science Fiction" or "Ultra Hard / Diamond Hard Science Fiction". P.s. For my own consumption, since I'm not having much success finding hard SF films that I haven't seen, please let me know if you have any suggestions. Woods1630 (talk) 07:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note After some changes the article now mainly lists dystopian works, nothing wrong with that but not really science fiction as others have noted. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After checking out dystopian, I see that I had somewhat misunderstood the word's meaning. I thought it meant any story set in a future society worse than the present. Most of the films and series are these, or deal with people's reaction to some problem -- like nuclear war or disease outbreak. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I have relisted this discussion rather than closing as a no consensus between delete/merge because the article continues to be edited and it looks like it may be possible to come to an agreeable consensus on this one. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Using arbitrary rules apparently decided only by the author makes this article original research. JIP | Talk 08:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and userfy. Considered WP:OR, but sources could probably be found if someone wanted to look for them (e.g. the page creator). dalahäst ^(talk) 11:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:JIP Pol430 talk to me 16:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The current list still has a high OR level; in particular, the "justifications" are pure and unadulterated OR. Post-apocalyptic fiction, which has a heavy presence on the list, generally does not use (plausibly extrapolated) science as its backbone and thus fails an essential criterion for being "hard". What is really needed for this list to survive – preferably as a section in Hard Science Fiction – are examples of SF films that are described as "hard SF" by reliable sources. --Lambiam 20:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's basically a POV fork to champion one particular definition of hard scifi. Kuguar03 (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Delete – I agree it seems PoV-ish in nature, but the idea seems good. It needs to be rewritten in a more neutral/unbiased form based on authoritative viewpoints. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The concept of "hard" SF is very clear, very basic to all understanding of the genre, and covered in all sources discussing the general subject. The list is therefor appropriate. Individual items, as always, can be discussed on the talk page. (I know it sounds vague to those unfamiliar with the study of the subject, who just read the works. But we're an encyclopedia , and go beyond that naïve approach to literature.) DGG ( talk ) 08:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Agreed that the current article is unacceptably OR. I'd like to keep it for now, but if it remains the way it is after six months, I'd be inclined to delete without prejudice. Ma^t_chups 02:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: That "hard SF" is an extant term is not in dispute, but that's not the point of the AfD. The point is that there is no consensus definition of the term, and as such a list claiming to be based on the term cannot be validly sourced. Like with many a similar subjective term, I doubt you could get any five SF fans to agree on a definition, nor any five SF fans to agree that any given film meets it.
That being said, for pity's sake, this is as obvious an essay, based on criteria solely chosen and solely interpreted by the article's creator, as I've seen in my seven years on Wikipedia. It's screamingly illegitimate original research, and I'm astonished that anyone could advocate keeping it. (Which, in fact, very few people have, and I'm likewise astonished that this AfD has been held open for three weeks with such a strong consensus to Delete.) Ravenswing 11:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I completely agree. If this goes on for a few days more I'm tempted to invoke WP:SNOW and close this discussion. JIP | Talk 07:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have not been able to find reliable sources labelling even a single film as being "hard SF". Apparently, neither has anybody else, including the article's creator. Merging is therefore not an option. If we remove all unsourceable content – which, in this case, is not only unsourceable, but also obviously based solely on the disputable opinions of just one random editor – only the title will remain, which will make the article speediable anyway. --Lambiam 17:11, 13 January 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. It has not been shown that there is significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject. Jujutacular ^talk 20:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biofortified[edit]

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

The only decent source on the page (forbes) doesn't mention the site and I came up with nothing on google news, google scholer and a quick peruse of google books found nothinhg related specifically to this site either. Therefore failes WEB, ORG and N. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As the nominator says, the majority of the sources given in the article are unreliable or published by the organization in question or its founders. The "award" it mentions is non-notable and awarded by a non-notable organization. The Forbes article includes information on Karl Haro von Mogel and Pamela Ronald, listed as key people in the infobox, and a minor mention of von Mogel's blog (possibly Biofortified?) - however, the fact that this article might contribute to the actual people being notable doesn't mean that it contributes to the website being notable. The COSMOS ref also appears to be reliable, but again is short mention of von Mogel's opinions, with a note that he is the editor of Biofortified. In a brief web search, I have not been able to find significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Dana boomer (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant independent coverage. SL93 (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It appears that there actually is coverage in reliable sources, rather than none as stated in the above !vote. See below. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I spent a little time digging and I was able to find several more reliable third-party sources that mention and discuss Biofortified, including Seed Magazine and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. I considered Dana Boomer's argument that the award was given from a non-notable organization, but if you take one look at the Ashoka: Innovators for the Public page and coverage of the activities of this organization, it is indeed notable. The COSMOS article stems from coverage of that topic on Biofortified (see here: [22]), which means that the content written on Biofortified is getting covered in more traditional media. Here are a few more links that suggest that the site is considered notable among scientists, but I did not add as references in the article just now because they either repeat information already in the article or merely speak to the notability issue: The University of California's Biotechnology site ucbiotech.org lists it as a helpful informational site. An article at the University of California's Cooperative Extension also directs people to go there for helpful information on GMOs. Coverage at AgBioWorld. COI: I am the article's creator and also a co-founder of the site. --Kjhvm (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep; Bearing in mind recent changes to the article, I think it passes the GNG, although not by a large margin. bobrayner (talk) 13:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Weak Keep - Per the research and arguments presented above by User:Kjhvm. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Added to article: "GMOs and Mother Nature - Closer Than You Think; Plastics; Sustainability of our farms; French Researcher Gives Up; Eating Glo-Fish". AgBioWorld.com. November 9, 2010. Retrieved January 8, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See also, significant coverage on Seedquest:

Haro von Mogel, Karl (November 2, 2010). GENERA: Students launch a new public resource on genetic engineering and need your help. Seedquest.com.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Did you realize that the article in question is not independent as it is written by a member of Biofortified? -- Whpq (talk) 11:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Let's run down the list of those new sources added which are not sourced from this outfit's own website, written by their own staffers or consisting of Twitter feeds and the like. The Forbes article does not mention Biofortified at all. The COSMOS article mentions Biofortified in passing, but does not discuss it in the "significant detail" the GNG requires; furthermore, it is explicitly established that quotes from a member of an organization do not serve to establish that organization's notability. The seedmagazine.com article does not mention Biofortified at all. The truthabouttrade.org blog, even were it a reliable source (which it is not), mentions Biofortified in passing, in a single sentence. The AgBioWorld.com piece reads like a press release, and I await the evidence that the website constitutes a reliable source. I further await Kjhvm's link to any such article in the Post-Dispatch.
Perhaps the Keep proponents are unclear about the requirements of WP:GNG and WP:V. Articles must discuss the subject in significant detail, not people or entities associated with it, or causes championed by it. They must be mentioned in multiple, reliable, independent sources ... not Facebook pages, not random blogs and not in any source produced by the subject or employees of the subject. So far, I've yet to see a single qualifying source. Ravenswing 11:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's more information regarding the AgBioWorld source. Firstly, so there's no misunderstand about what I'm referring to, here's the source, an AgBioWorld newsletter (scroll down to view the Biofortified information in the document):

"GMOs and Mother Nature - Closer Than You Think; Plastics; Sustainability of our farms; French Researcher Gives Up; Eating Glo-Fish". AgBioWorld.com. November 9, 2010. Retrieved January 8, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)

The following is information regarding AgBioWorld, from the "About AgBioWorld" part of their website located here:

"The AgBioWorld Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization headquartered in Auburn, Alabama, and is run by Professor C.S. Prakash of Tuskegee University. The AgBioWorld community was established in January 2000 by Professor Prakash and Gregory Conko of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the foundation and AgBioView e-mail service rely upon the volunteer efforts of many friends and colleagues."

AgBioWorld aims to provide science-based information on agricultural biotechnology issues to various stakeholders across the world. Its website and e-mail service are a daily source of information for thousands of subscribers from dozens of countries. The AgBioWorld 'Declaration in Support of Agricultural Biotechnology' has been endorsed by over 3,400 scientists, including 25 Nobel Laureates such as Dr. Norman Borlaug, Dr. James Watson, Dr. Arthur Kornberg, Dr. Marshall Nirenberg, Dr. Peter Doherty, Dr. Paul Berg, Mr. Oscar Arias Sanchez and Dr. John Boyer."

This is definitely a reliable source, in terms of the editorial integrity of the publisher. While the formatting, layout and style of the prose on the web page may suggest that it's a news release, this may not be the case. Perhaps other users can verify whether or not this information is a verbatim press release from Biofortified.

Regarding the Seedquest.com article:

Haro von Mogel, Karl (November 2, 2010). GENERA: Students launch a new public resource on genetic engineering and need your help. Seedquest.com.

User:Whpq is correct (see comment above), it was written by Karl Haro von Mogel, a founder of Biofortified. I mistakenly overlooked this matter, so this can only be used as a primary source, and not to establish topic notability. I've changed my !vote above to "weak keep," per the AgBioWorld article, unless it's a verbatim press release reprint, in which case my !vote would change in favor of deletion.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The AgBioWorld article has all the hallmarks of press release with contact information at the bottom. Regardless, the web site is not one that I would consider as a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be an academic organization/source with intellectual integrity, though, which is reliable, in my opinion. The formatting of their website doesn't necessarily mean that the information is a verbatim reprinted press release. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a bit more discussion has happened in the last few days. Let me add a few more comments and respond to some of the comments above. I can confirm that the AgBioWorld piece is an adaptation of a press release, so if that disqualifies it as a notability source then that's fine. Moving on, I would like to correct Ravenswing's comments about sources. The Seed Magazine does discuss Biofortified, [23], and The St. Louis Post-Dispatch article has already been added to the article. The link to the original piece on the Post-Dispatch website is not available, but it has been archived on many other sites, and the Truth About Trade site is one such site. Here is a google search demonstrating its ubiquity:[24] I hope this helps clarify things some more. Note that in this discussion, an in-depth audio interview for an agricultural news site is being overlooked entirely - just thought I would mention it. --Kjhvm (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Seed Magazine article does not discuss Biofortified; it is an interview where the person being interviewed mentions the website in a single sentence. Similarly with the Post-Dispatch article; it simply mentions Biofortified in a single sentence. That's not significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 15:49, 13 January 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 all to List_of_Still_Game_episodes#Series_1. No arguments for keeping as standalone articles. Redirects have support - any redirects that may be valid to direct elsewhere can be dealt with via disambiguation if/when the need arises.Michig (talk) 09:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flittin[edit]

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

redirect non notable episode articles, all plot, no references. See earlier deletion discussion of a similar episode (used as a test baloon) Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cauld

Nominating for redirect to List_of_Still_Game_episodes#Series_1 Gaijin42 (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following similar episodes

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:42, 23 December 2011 (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/2011 December 24. Snotbot t • c » 05:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Unnecessary detailed synopses of individual episodes already adequately covered in Still_Game#Series_1_.282002.29. I'm not keen on redirects for these (and especially for the already AfDed "Cauld"): the single-word episode titles were specifically chosen as commonplace Scots words; it is unlikely anyone who might sbe earching on these terms will expect to arrive at Still Game. AllyD (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all as proposed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a triple relisting is inappropriate - The previous redirects were overwhelmingly supported, and imo should be used as votes for these tightly related articles. In any case, if nobody objects, then the proposal is non controversial and should be passed. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You don't need to bring articles to AfD if all you want to do is redirect them. Just redirect them yourself (or, if there is any opposition to the redirects, discuss the matter on the talk page). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nobody is going to be searching on this anyway, so, no reason to redirect--198.85.228.129 (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since a redirect is one of the accepted closes to an AfD in deletion policy, it is perfectly reasonable to bring such changes here in cases where disputes are expected, so they get wider attention. People who do that usually word it in some such way as "delete or redirect," to deal with this possible objection, but that's just a matter of wording. WP is not a bureaucracy, and any tendencies to move it in that direction should be resisted. DGG ( talk ) 07:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You raise an interesting point. I, myself, don't bring an article to AfD unless I am calling for its deletion -- though as you say, if I am open to redirect or (if it has referenced text) to merger), I often indicate as much. BTW -- our friend Warden criticized me when I said that I thought an article should be deleted, but was open to the merge of one referenced sentence ... saying that by indicating that flexibility I had made the nomination procedurally defective, and subject to a speedy keep. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Michael's Catholic School. So there are editors with differing views.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually only offer the "redirect" as a courtesy to the original editor - somethign along the lines of "your effort will not be completely wasted". Im usually fine with the article actually getting deleted in the end though. Basically I started doing deletes, and lots of them ended up as redirects, so now I offer that if it seems reasonable Gaijin42 (talk) 16:16, 13 January 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. Most opinions here are in favour of keeping, and since sources were presented here, all arguments have been for keeping. Michig (talk) 10:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

V-Nasty[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable musician, fails WP:BAND, speedy deletion has been applied once, article was recreated, speedy deletion tag has been removed the second time. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I started the other AFD earlier today, and it was speedied with different content. The problem is that the person is "famous" for two reasons: being on a non-notable album with someone notable (which isn't inherited), and for some controversy over her colorful language. As it is, most of the article is negative information about her, and the article isn't much. At the end of the day, even that isn't enough to make someone "notable". Under all definitions of notability, I just don't see significant coverage by reliable sources, I just see very little negative publicity. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am bringing up some hits for her, but I'm not sure exactly how notable she really is. This might be worth userfying or incubating until more sources can be found. So far most of the stories are pretty small, but this might be a sign that she could potentially become more notable. I'm not really voting for keep or delete until I've looked through the hits more.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Comment Which sounds like WP:TOOSOON, a valid point. I don't have a problem userfying the article myself, but think it is too soon to be into mainspace. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I could not find that many sources about this music artist to establish notability. There's only a limited number of sources, which in my opinion, cannot warrant that much notability. Tinton5 (talk) 17:28, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
yellin Keep V-Nasty / til my throat is raspy, as Kreayshawn almost exclaimed in "Gucci Gucci". if the New York Times thinks she's notable [25], who are we to disagree? Dennis Brown is quite wrong to describe her album as non-notable: it's been reviewed by Spin [26], XXL [27], Consequence of Sound [28], AllHipHop [29]. I'm sure that's not an exhaustive account. Dennis also underestimates the significance of the issue of this white girl saying "nigga". People found there was a bit more to that issue than "colorful language" and it was written about accordingly. Coverage of all sorts includes: Complex [30] (click thru), SF Weekly's "The Year in V-Nasty" [31] (also [32] [33]), XXL again [34] (picked up by BET, who followed that story closely thru the hip hop press [35][36][37]), AllHipHop [38], debate at the non-profit Oakland Local [39][40], LA Weekly [41][42][43][44]. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to agree with the person above me. Artist has released an album (with Gucci Mane, an already established artist) and has been profiled by notable publications. Article just needs to be expanded through regular editing. Quasy Boy 22:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Number 7 at WP:BAND says notability can be established if the subject "[h]as become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style". V-Nasty is the second most famous representative of white chick rap from Oakland behind the indisputably notable Kreayshawn. I believe that and the mixtape with Gucci Mane establish notability. (I wouldn't mind if it became Merge and redirect to Kreayshawn, though.) CityO fSilver 23:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per coverage listed above by IP 86.44.31.213, particularly that in the New York Times, LA Weekly, Spin and BET. This topic appears to pass WP:GNG. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In my view there exists enough coverage for this person from the reliable sources listed above to satisfy WP:GNG and criterion 1 of WP:MUSIC. Gongshow ^Talk 06:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rolling Stone has an article about the recent collaboration with a major rapper, and there's other sources (all in the article). Fairly easy pass of GNG. Shadowjams (talk) 23:26, 5 January 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 David Yates. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Voice In My Head (film)[edit]

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

Film is not in production and has not had significant coverage. It is WP:TOOSOON for this film to have an article. BOVINEBOY2008 02:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. While that policy, WP:TOOSOON, may be a reason not to have this article, it does contain reliable sources from 3rd party. I would like to see what others think. Tinton5 (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for a short while per essays WP:TOOSOON and WP:Planned films to director David Yates where this future project is already mentioned. Its a close call, but I do not find enough persistant coverage over an extended perioid of time to merit being an exception to NFF. The article can be restored and further expanded and sourced upon announcement of principle filming. And yes... its a close call. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Has it been greenlit? Will it be made? Is production, or even pre-production, underway? Is this an actual project? Well, then, keep. If it's deleted, you'll just need to remake it again in a few months' anyway, so why waste your, our and the world's time? Are things that bad at home? --Applemask (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect protects the history and the redirect can be reverted and the article immediately brought back to life when we have confirmation of principle filming. And even if deleted, an admin can restore the article so there'd be no need to remake it all from scratch. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to some appropriate page until filming begins, per the guidelines for future films and MichaelQSchmidt's comments above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate until notability can be assessed. Unscintillating (talk) 05:21, 2 January 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; since the re-listing a snowstorm has hit. Bearian (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People[edit]

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

Suitable only for either:

plural of person (in which case it should redirect to there)
dictionary content (unencyclopedic), or
disambiguation ala People (disambiguation)#Groups] (in which case that should be moved over)

--Pfhorrest (talk) 06:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, an established and well-defined concept. Why is this even on AfD? JIP | Talk 07:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because it does not appear to have ever had substantial encyclopedic content that is not already covered much better elsewhere on Wikipedia. People are notable, sure, and we have an article on them in the singular which should suffice, and if it didn't there are also a variety of articles on different kinds of groups of them already. I would be down to keep the article and even help improve it, if only anyone could suggest a scope for it that is encyclopedic (e.g. not dictionary cruft) and not completely redundant with other established articles. --Pfhorrest (talk) 11:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was meaning "people" as in "a people", a concept in itself, not as the plural of "person". If the word "people" only meant the plural of "person" then this article should simply be redirected, like we don't have separate articles for "dog" and "dogs". But "a people" is a group of humans that share a common ethnic and/or cultural background, which is a concept on its own right. JIP | Talk 10:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Human. This article is of no conceivable use as it stands save as an item in a dictionary which of course Wikipedia isn't. Improvement to the article sufficient to make it worthy of such a universal title would render it huge and unwieldy, and anyway, there are more obviously named pages for the information that an improved 'People' page would provide. asnac (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed per above, except redirect to person, not human. Not all people are necessarily humans, or at least to assume so violates WP:NPOV in the face of things such as discussed at Personhood. --Pfhorrest (talk) 11:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While in a way this functions as a disambiguation, important and useful material would be lost by converting it to one-line descriptions as the nominator suggests. If anything is to be done to make this and People (disambiguation)#Groups resemble one another more, it is that these other meanings of "people" should be explained more. As a side note, is there any way of fixing this long list of irrelevant previous AfDs? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is about the singular noun "a people" as in maybe the Irish people or the Jewish people or any other group considered "a people". It's a very different referent from the legal concept of the referent of person, or the species referent of human, as in "I don't know whether Ohioans are a coherent people. Chrisrus (talk) 02:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge/Redirect. My preferred solution is to pare down the page to a proper disambiguation page, merging any resulting content not already present into People (disambiguation), which already points to Person on its first line; then move the resultant People (disambiguation) → People. --Pfhorrest (talk) 25 December 2011 (UTC)
User:Clarityfiend just deleted a number of items from People (disambiguation). If that was an appropriate move on his part, and those sorts of items are not suitable for a disambiguation page for "People", then I could be amenable to People being repurposed into an article on the subject Chrisrus describes above, summarizing and linking to the various related articles (e.g. tribe, nation, etc) that were until recently on the dab page, as that would no longer be redundant. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Split. The content seems notable, but the article should be split into people (political science) and people (legal term) or such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The current content, after deleting the dicdefs that were in the lead, is summary styles of two other articles, Commoner and Popular sovereignty. Are you suggesting that that content should be split into the two hypothetical articles you name above? How would that not be entirely redundant with the two articles it is already summaries of? --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to person. The nominator has a point in relation the the encyclopedic value of the article. Till I Go Home (talk) 01:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The concept of a people goes far beyond political science or law; this needs expansion, not deletion or conversion to disambiguation. This is an introduction to a group of related topics: it must be a summary of multiple topics because the topics are closely related, while a disambiguation page is meant for unrelated entities that merely share a name. Various meanings of "the people" are not at all unrelated. And yes, we Ohioans are coherent :-) Nyttend (talk) 14:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term "people" and the term "person" have different meanings. They are both special, and yes people is the plural of person. But as stated above, the content is notable enough to have its own page. Tinton5 (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question Does the usage in this article have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question. I googled around a bit, and the question "what does it mean to be a people" seems to be of interest to various religions, as it is apparently used often this way in the Bible. I also found discussion of the rights of peoples to self-determination in the UN Charter, which states that peoples have the right to govern themselves, but then it becomes a question what exactly that means. So it seems to be an important topic discussed for some time. I'd ask experts in international law, social philosophy, and the antropological study of tribes and such, as well as certain religions. They must have good published papers on the topic. But more exactly to what I think is your point, I don't know if the article people does cite this kind of coverage. If not, then the question becomes whether to delete it on those grounds or to improve it by seeing to it that it does. To get away from the point, I can't see deleting any article on notablity grounds alone so long as (9270) 1978 VO8 and thousands of other blatant notablity fails are allowed to exist. While specks of rock that have nothing to do with anything and are of interest to no one such as (9270) 1978 VO8 get articles, it seems unfair to delete something more notable (wouldn't just about anything be?) on notablity grounds alone, and a something just wrong to delete an article on a concept as hugely important and interesting as People on notablity grounds alone. Chrisrus (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable political concept which is discussed in detail in sources such as Bringing in the People and Citizenship: the history of an idea. Warden (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do the necessary work for a Featured Article. One of the most absurd nomination I have ever seen in five years here. Basic political concept to western civilization. Thousands of sources available and relevant, and the Col's sources prove notability beyond any question (as expected, for he, unlike many people around here, actually looks for sourcing) . This might be one of the rare cases for including the article in the title, as The People -- it would clarify the meaning. Easily expandable to many times the current length, with many times the current sources. DGG ( talk ) 08:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It isn't often that I agree with the likes of DGG and Warden at AfD, but we do here; this is quite an absurd nomination. Beyond that, why was this relisted, with as strong a consensus to Keep as there already was? Ravenswing 11:37, 12 January 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 List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 16:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Dash[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

Nopony else has her own article, but why does Rainbow Dash have an article? I'd say merge to List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters. Jeremjay 24 17:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per all the other ponies. Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 20:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and why are we even here at AfD if the nom wants a merge and no one has contested it? Jclemens (talk) 04:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or Redirect. Lacks notability, aside from a few incidental references. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:26, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article, add redirect to "list of" page. On its own, this is a non-notable article. The Wood Walton paper does not confer notability on this pony. We are here, AFAIK, because user Fifelfoo reverted the redirect that had been put in place of this article; the more general subject was discussed here in the My Little Pony wikiproject, which in essence said "individual pony articles are not notable and will be redirected. Any redirections that are reverted will lead to an AfD such that the community can decide on the future of the article". --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 7-10 separate articles about several main characters from the show wouldn't hurt anyone. Ptok Bentoniczny (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Only if you ignore all wikipedia rules such as WP:N. Why would pony articles be immune to such regulations? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia's notaility rules are vague and subjective, morevoer, they are absolutely self-imposed, therefore they have no value and no sense at all. Because in my opinion, the main ponies from these show ARE notable, especially Rainbow Dash; she's most commonly seen in MLP memes. And to be honest, Imagine 6 articles about the main characters; merging them would mean creating an impossibly long list-article, it's better to read a normal article. And beside that, Wikipedia isn't a place with limited space, right? Ptok Bentoniczny (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC) PS: And please don't respond But WP:N! <-- they DO NOT explain themselves and they are no argument.[reply]

And where do you expect to get the sources from to verify your claims? News articles that only make a bare mention of the character's name? Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 14:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

where the hell AM I!? Eh... I'm pretty sure that Rainbow Dash is faaaar more notable than THIS or this. Seriously, if it's popular on the Internet and it's a character from a popular TV show (specifiaclly, one popular among some adults, not only kids) then it explains its notability by itself. There is no need to prove notability in certain types of sources. Any sources should count toward this. And seriously, it's far more notable and well-known than many other things already included in Wikipedia. And that's why I deny Wikipedia's notability policy because it leads to pure nonsense... Ptok Bentoniczny (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And such merging leads to incredibly long articles that are long lists... It's just more comfortable to read a shorter article... Seriously, where's the common sense?? Ptok Bentoniczny (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is some truth to the idea that there are grey areas when it comes to the notability rules. But it does not mean that the rules are completely meaningless and should be ignored. I also don't see any problem with the List of My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic characters. You can use the table of contents page to jump to which particular character you want. Also, if you have an issue with the notability of another article, then you can feel free to add a Notability tag, or even create an article for deletion vote. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I don't see enough solid references to justify a stand-alone article. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Save Twis article won't be 20% cooler 83.28.109.169 (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - nearly every pokemon has its own page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.115.174.71 (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just to let people know, the argument of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (that other articles exist that are similar or non-notable) and WP:HARMLESS (what harm would it do to keep it) aren't really viable arguments, nor is WP:LIKE (I like it, other people like it, so it deserves a page). Ignore all rules is good, but you still have to back that up with valid reasons as to why it's necessary to ignore the rules. I don't really have an opinion either way in this, but I thought I'd come in and say that if you want to keep the article then you have to back this up with valid reasons as to why. These same arguments were brought up with the other MLPFIM character pages and they still got redirected, so I can say from experience that you will have to make some pretty valid arguments to keep the page.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Comment. My valid reason why the older ponies were deleted and DEEMED not notable is because the only sources were in Fansites only. It's not like someone can Transcribe an entire MLP catalogue and include them, And because the Mane 6 have their own articles and not the rest, is plain stupid.--Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) (talk) 13:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Look guys. About Rainbow Dash. she has 4'400'000 hits in google. Lots of images depicting her. Many many pony-bloggers write about the characters. You can't say it's not notable because no serious journalist hasn't written anything about her. Lots of memes were created based on Rainbow Dash. She is a controversial character because some see a feminist-lesbian type in her (what's mentioned in the article we discuss now). I say Ignore Wikipedia-style-notability-rule because it makes no sense in this case, OK? AND less valid arguments - many, many fictional characters got their articles and they ARE notable?? I believe that Rainbow Dash is more notable than some less-known Pokemon. Please don't say it's not comparable because it is comparable. Different characters from different show but one is notable and the second is not even though both are well set in the Internet. There is a lot of fanfic about Rainbow Dash. Rainbow Dash is a part of 'cupcakes' stories. There is a lot of useless things in Wikipedia SO I think those things aren't much more useless. RD definetely deserves a separate article. Wikipedia already became something like a catalogue (listing e.g. all railway stations!!) and I think a character from well-known show that is notable because of bronies culture (what is a phenomenon) should have a separate article. Oh, and you say that fansites are not enough to keep an article but... if there are fansites... a lots of them, then it is NOTABLE? Ptok Bentoniczny (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and still keep. Ptok Bentoniczny (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how many number of shitty fansites using a free website provider like Webs you can pull off the web. If it's not covered by any reliable media outlet, it's useless fodder. Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 22:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By fodder, I mean cannon fodder. Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 22:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there are a lot of shitty fansites, then it simply IS notable by the fact that those shitty fansites exist. Something that's not notable wouldn't have so many fansites (lacking of fansites doesn't exclude a possibility of something being notable ofc). Besiedes, there's even a game featuring Rainbow Dash (Rainbow Dash attack). So Rainbow Dash is both a cartoon character AND a game character. Ptok Bentoniczny (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ptok: You have your own standard for "notability", but you must understand that it is not Wikipedia's. All wikipedians, regardless of nationality, race, religion, economic status or beliefs must play by the set of agreed upon rules. It is the only way that a site like this can function. We cannot make our own rules and guidelines. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never an argument. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge unless better sources can be found there is no realistic alternative. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge because there are no reliable sources available. And the other characters were deleted out of existence as well.--Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) (talk) 08:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now. Until mainstream publications or cable news mention the character, she's not notable.

– Confession0791 ^talk 13:42, 5 January 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 Wokingham#Education . well established consensus on primary school articles (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bearwood Primary School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Merger was proposed well over 3 years ago, but no action was taken. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 20:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As un-notable. It is perhaps unfortunate that this article survived its first AfD in 2006. I hope that standards for inclusion have improved since then. Fact is there are almost 17,000 primary schools in the UK. In my opinion that means that it needs to be pretty special to get an encyclopaedia article. As for promises back in 2006 that it would be improved, there is little or no improvement and there is most definitely still no assertion of why this school is notable. The only piece of notability I could grant is that if you take the history of this article seriously, it appears the whole school has moved from the West Midlands to Berkshire at some point in the last 5 years (see article in 2006. In reality, I doubt that is the case Pit-yacker (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing Admin: I have removed a list of pupils at the school that was added by 89.243.46.252 in March. If the article is kept it may be worth considering erasing these edits as this, IMHO, could well have serious privacy issues. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Topics are not required to be "special" in any way. What they require are independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG and this topic has them, e.g. this report of 15 pages. Our editing policy is to keep such material while it is also our policy not to delete notable material just because some people don't like it. Warden (talk) 21:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage. Run-of-the-mill. A routine government report, as as that linked above, does not establish "significant coverage": It demonstrates only existence, not notability. Neutrality^talk 23:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no claim to notability is being made in the article and I can't find anything in the edits which could be classed as being notable. Really, these sorts of articles need sources if they're to be kept. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but REDIRECT to its locality per standard procedure. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this AFD, in which the clear majority of the !voters are !voting delete, serves to bolster the proposition that we might benefit from a shoring up of our notability guideline for schools to reflect whatever the consensus is. At this article, at this point, the consensus appears to be to delete. I'm less concerned with what our ultimate position is than with the fact that different editors disagree about some of the peripheral content of what the consensus is. And, of course, I am sensitive to the fact that consensus can change. In any event, a clearer explication of our consensus in policy might streamline school afds. Again, my concern is more with us accurately stating and reflecting consensus in a guideline than with which approach we adopt.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable.Fails GNG. Redirect might be preferred if it was enshrined in a guideline or policy. But it's not unfortunately. It's just custom and practice that's grown up that is unsupported by anything official. Let's delete and move on. Might encourage acceptance of a decent notability guideline for schools.Fmph (talk) 10:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Astute general comment by Fmph re guideline for schools.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Redirect' is one of the official closures, and indeed all policies and/or guidelines recommend seeking any solution that leaves deletion as a last resort. This does not mean that Wikipdia is inclusionist per se, but caution is the best policy where deletion is uncertain to be absolutely necessary, and where AfD !votes (either way) are not founded on policy, guidelines, or precedent. AfD is not the venue for debating policy, but it can certainly determine a recognised precedent, as it has done over the years on a vast scale for redirecting school articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above. This particular educational system does not appear to be notable. If people are to provide more citations for this article, that may benifet it, I will change my opinion. Superlayna (talk) 05:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is, without doubt, the best primary school^{[citation needed]} in that part of Wokingham LEA but that's a personal opinion and not sourced. It will have had lots of local coverage but not anything wider I'm afraid. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ofsted reports are part of a statutory inspection process which all the 16,000+ maintained primary schools undergo. The existence of the report goes with the existence of the institution and therefore cannot be said to establish notability.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per the WP:GNG, source need three attributes to establish notability:

Independence
Detail
Reliability

Existence is not a relevant factor for the subject - we cover some topics that don't exist such as fiction. What does have to exist are sources and we have those in this case. Warden (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons why inspection reports do not establish notability for English schools has been explained above.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 11:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I thought the drive to delete most school articles died out 5 years ago, it is a pity it is still with us. Add all the missing schools too, complete coverage would be fantastic. This is an encyclopedia, not a ranking organization. Zero^talk 00:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Sindlesham per standard practice, as this is a non-notable elementary school. Carrite (talk) 06:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge with Sindlesham and preserve the information about this primary school, without having a separate article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, which parts of the article do you see as encyclopaedic and needing to be merged into the Sindlesham article? Fmph (talk) 12:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG, no other reason to delete. De Guerre (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect to Wokingham#Education as per consistent recent procedure (eg: Cavendish School (Camden), WP:Articles for deletion/Grove Primary School, Frimley). The proposed redirect already mentions a similar nearby private school. --Ritchie333 (talk) 10:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the ((R from school)) on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wokingham#Education per standard practice. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A real existing school deserves its own dedicated entry. Per the Colonel and De Guerre, sources are present to meet GNG, so no reason to destroy the article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply trying to follow what I've been told is convention with primary schools, and have articles comport to them. Some editors have even encouraged me to simply redirect articles such as this one, without any AfD nomination or discussion, because the consensus on this issue is so clear. While 4 editors have !voted Keep so far (Kud's seems more of a redirect or merge), we also have what seems to be a consensus above that the article should not be kept as a stand-alone article (though editors differ as to whether the result should be delete, redirect, or merge). I'm happy to follow whatever the consensus is, but I've been told repeatedly that, absent unusual circumstances, our convention is not to keep such articles as stand-alone articles (just as our convention is, I'm told, to keep articles on high schools, even if they lack substantial RS coverage). Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment. Per "concensus can change", maybe its best to stop destroying these articles despite any past precedent. As some of our best editors often say, a merge is often almost as destructive as a delete. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that consensus can change, and think it would be better if our consensus (whatever it is) were enshrined in our notability guideline. But if I don't simply trust the word of others as to what our consensus is, but base my view on the past 150 or so school AfDs, it appears that at a minimum the consensus is not to keep such articles as stand-alones. Some articles have closed as redirect, a number have closed as delete (though editors sometimes assert that is not the consensus; perhaps that is an example of it changing, and a reason for us to enshrine whatever the consensus is in our notability guideline), and a few have closed as merge or "editors should feel free to merge any RS-supported material". Again -- I'm simply seeking conformity to consensus, and if consensus were to keep such articles as stand-alones, I would be happy to support that as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:GNG or school guidelines. Edinburgh Wanderer 22:16, 6 January 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) Bryce (talk | contribs) 05:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Underhill Society of America[edit]

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

WP:NN genealogy / family club. NYT reference shows a family reunion. Other available references are obscure genealogy references/publications and primary sources published by the club itself. No reliable, in-depth coverage, makes the article fail WP:CORP.

Related AFDs:

Toddst1 (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've been involved in some of the other AFDs, and only finding obits there. In this, we see one small blurb in the NYT about a family reunion. I don't see a clear case for notability. What worries me is the sheer volume of other redlinks in this article, with the remaining links being up for AFD. It seems to be a whole family tree that doesn't pass WP:N individually or as a whole. Tried to work with creator, no reply. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep based on two New York Times articles that talk about it, although not exactly by the same name. Borderline, perhaps, but I think the problem is availability of quick sources, not whether they exist. Needs someone to do some old fashioned library foot work. Also, many of the other concerns about notability of the members has been resolved. The article still needs better citations, but that is a matter of editing, not criteria. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd think that a U.S. President saying this is a notable family and attending the dedication of an important monument of the forebear of the family who arrived in America in 1630 would be notable. In response to the comment above, several redlinks have been removed. As the primary contributor to this article, I am totally willing to make more changes. Placepromo (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is not inherited. Notability is determined individually on an article by article basis. This Society does not become notable just because Captain John Underhill is notable. The society itself must at the very least meet WP:GNG. Some of my ancestors have articles, but I wouldn't imagine that makes a society of their descendants notable. Yworo (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, following Dennis Brown's lead on this, some of the members of the family / presidents of the club received recognition in the NYTimes. Most likely there are more historical sources to be found in libraries as Dennis suggests. Yworo (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain to me how a Society which has produced numerous scholarly presentations, placed an impressive monument on the site of an ancestor, and remained in existence for over 100 years is not notable. How then are organizations like the Saint Nicholas Society in the City of New York the Daughters of the American Revolution notable, whereas this particular lineage society is not? The longer this goes on the greater feeling I have this particular organization is being singled out. Placepromo (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, read the general notability guideline. Notability is based on the amount of in-depth independent third-party material available to use a sources. It is not based on presentations, monuments, or length of existence. Meeting announcements in the New York Times are not in-depth coverage, they are meeting announcements. Everything else seems to be sourced to primary sources, which do not establish notability. It's being singled out based on your creation of lengthy articles on several clearly non-notable Underhills, Your user name, containing the word "promo" doesn't help either. It gives the impression that you might be a professional promoter paid to promote this organization on Wikipedia, which would violate our conflict of interest policy. Yworo (talk) 22:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has been incredibly frustrating, and, not to mention, an enormous waste of time. Feel free to do whatever you want. I will pursue my interests elsewhere. This will be my last Wikipedia post, at least for a long, long while. Placepromo (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Exchange between Dennis Brown moved to talk page for User talk: placepromo as it pertained to multiple articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Placepromo (talk • contribs)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 03:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The addition of new sources, including several articles from the New York Times, have demonstrated that both the organization and people who participated as part of it, had notability. This has been proven by the fact that ~~with the exception of William Wilson Underhill,~~ every President of the organization that has a Wikipedia page is well-sourced and other AFD requests have been overturned ~~(and, it should be noted the consensus for William is leaning toward Keep)~~ (Note: William William Underhill received a speedy keep). Substantial improvements have been made to the Underhill Society of America page since the original AFD tag. Hopefully in light of the changes that have been made, others will agree to Keep and/or to change previous Delete opinions to Keep. No matter where folks stand, the feedback and AFD process was helpful at improving this article and related articles. Now the task seems to be to move on and further improve this and other articles. Also, please note that previously I posted under Placepromo though am now posting under IDKremer based on advice and direction I received to change my username to one that was more suitable. IDKremer (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has suggestions of how to further improve this page, please post these on my User talk:IDKremer page. Thanks! IDKremer (talk) 14:30, 3 January 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. Michig (talk) 10:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Youth (single)[edit]

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

Nothing more here than at the Alien Youth album article. A large portion of this article is just a copy>paste from there. Calabe 1992 03:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing in the article provided to indicate notability. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is not reason why this cant be included in the main article. --JetBlast (talk) 05:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The material from the single's article is already included in the album article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This stub is entirely redundant to material covered in the entry for the album of the same name, which fact obviates the need for a redirect. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 14:48, 2 January 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. Consensus is that the incident is not notable enough for a separate article. BritAirman, I'm sorry that this had to happen to your first article. Sandstein 09:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

British Airways flight 2157[edit]

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

The incident is not notable as per Wikipedia:Aircrash. The accident was not fatal to humans. It did not involve serious damage. It did not result in a change of procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry JetBlast (talk) 02:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable WP:AIRCRASH. Did not cause a change in procedures, just rapped knuckles and enforcement of existing regs.Petebutt (talk) 05:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:AIRCRASH. Had the door actually hit the people, then it might just be possible to argue for a mention in the aircraft and airline articles. Bits fall off aircraft on an almost daily basis somewhere in the world. Ths incident is not worth mentioning. Mjroots (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Its not significant, there are more than 100 large plane crashes every year.--LarEvee (talk) 21:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and burn with fire. A part fell off the aircraft. Aircraft landed. Boeing is told to fix the part. This might be worth mentioning in the Boeing 777 article, but it fails the WP:AIRCRASH criterion for a stand-alone article - specifically, the meets-the-WP:GNG part - so hard they felt it back when Boeing was still building biplanes. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you all for your helpful comments. I have clarified the article to explain that the change to airport engineering procedures qualifies for inclusion under the definition "...or incident invoked a change in procedures,..." per Wikipedia:Aircrash. I have also added an image to explain the mechanism of the incident and another reference to a story in the national press about it.

To mjroots and LarEvee, I do not think there needs to be injury to people or a crash for it to warrant mentioning. For your information, I am not a pilot and have no connection to the airline industry. Something on TV made me remember this incident and I went to Wikipedia to look it up. I was surprised not to find anything (now I know why!) and since I was on Christmas leave, I decided to do some research into it and write my own first article for Wikipedia. I did look at the Wikipedia:Aircrash criteria and the change in engineering procedures resulting from the incident and I thought this made it notable (I am sorry I did not make this clearer in the first draft). The article went live and was edited positively by two administrators, before a third change marked it for deletion. Now I understand the process more fully and I have modified the article - I believe it is greatly improved as a result.

I think the administrators do an excellent job, however, there is a danger that experts might 'over police' articles submitted. The article is about an incident that was covered by the BBC News and the mainstream national press. If it had not involved an aircraft it would probably never have been marked for deletion. However administrators who are also airline experts may have different views on what is 'notable' compared to most of the other 'lay' readers of Wikipedia who will look at things differently. There are plenty of in depth articles written by airline experts for airline experts on the internet already, but this is not what Wikipedia is all about. Details of the incident would have been exposed to millions of people through the BBC News and newspaper articles published at the time - clearly those editors felt it to be notable. Had it not been in the news I would never have heard about it myself! BritAirman (talk) 22:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BritAirman, I agree that an incident does not have to be fatal to achieve notability - British Airways Flight 9, British Airways Flight 38 and China Airlines Flight 006 to name but three. This incident doesn't have that notability. Mjroots (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All 3 of the articles you linked to, every aircraft received substantial damage. This isnt the case for flight 2157. --JetBlast (talk) 11:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see sufficient sourcing to identify this as an independently notable incident and therefore justifying its own article - aside from the AIBB reports, there are only the contemporary news reports and a self-published website. Not enough to substanstiate the requirements of general notability (bearing in mind also WP:NOTNEWS) Secondly I don't think the previously developed consensus on what is required for a separate article (the WP:Aircrash guideline) is met - the recommendation of the investigation is essentially "think about these ways of organizing your maintenance procedures so it doesn't happen again". GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Graeme, for your helpful suggestions (and corrections to the page).

1. I have removed the retired 777 Captain's self-published website reference.

2. I have now located the follow up report from the CAA which was marked CLOSED in accordance with the classification given when an AIBB Safety Recommendation has been acted upon (see new reference). Since this was a recommended change in engineering maintenance procedures in relation to the access door, I believe this now provides sufficient proof for inclusion under the definition "...or incident invoked a change in procedures,..." per Wikipedia:Aircrash.

BritAirman (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was a recommendation and not a change in procedure, they are not the same thing. Because of this is does not meet Wikipedia:Aircrash --JetBlast (talk) 04:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to British Airways With two solid newspaper articles long after the incident, the topic passes WP:GNG, although it would likely fit well in the list of British Airways incidents. Article seems to have been improved to correct some of the deficiencies previously cited, so as per guidelines, previous !votes become "irrelevant" that are based on the deficiencies now corrected. This material is from reliable sources with more-than-insignificant information, it is neither WP:NOTNEWS nor WP:EVENT, and it is information that people want to know (as per WP:UCS and "we follow the sources"). Unscintillating (talk) 07:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge No fatalities, no hull loss, WP:NOTNEWS also seems to apply. A mention at BA or the airport article is the most it merits.= William 12:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear William,

Thank you for your input, please note though that I believe that the article qualifies for inclusion as an 'airline incident' see - Wikipedia:Aircrash, by virtue of the fact that British Airways "changed its procedures" as a result of the subsequent AIBB enquiry into the incident. There are now several cited references to confirm that fact. I did not set these Wikepedia criteria and if editors disagree on whether this warrants inclusion for an airline incident article then that discussion should take place on the Wikipedia:Aircrash inclusion criteria page. I believe these guidelines are set for newbies such as myself to follow when creating new articles.

The reference to the Air France Concorde crash enquiry verdict on the exact same day (also relating to loss of a metal panel from an aircraft on take off) explains why this BA incident got such huge coverage in the UK (I see though that you have deleted this reference). Since both items appeared on the same BBC News edition, I am sure the editors would have been aware of the significance. I would not be surprised if the French court decision to prosecute Continental Airlines may have influenced BA in deciding to change their panel fastening procedures! Anyway the news items are cited as "reliable sources" for information regarding the BA2157 incident and I am not proposing this as a WP:NOTNEWS item. BritAirman (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Airlines change procedures routinely after many incidents to prevent a repeat.

As for the Air France Concorde enquiry verdict causing the BA accident to get enhanced coverage, you're not improving the case to save this article. What you're saying is it is a coattail effect or in other words that if the enquiry hadn't come out the same day, the BA incident wouldn't have gotten as much press. Bottom line is- I don't buy the BA-Concorde connection at all. This is unless you had a reliable source stating the BA incident got more coverage because of the Concorde enquiry. Otherwise this is all WP:Original research or unsupported conjecture at best.- William 14:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, so you agree that it was a change in procedure! I note that you have marked 12 Wikipedia Airline Flight incidents and accidents for deletion over the last week, based on similar 'not significant' criteria. I have had a look through these and most are (in my view) interesting, well written and well referenced. As a lay reader I find it fascinating to read how commercial aircraft have landed on two wheels and I remember the JetBlue Airways Flight 292 from the news. Your most recent marking for deletion was British Airways Flight 268 which I also remember very well as it too got huge media coverage at the time and this is a route I have flown on! This interesting article describes how a BA 747 flew from LAX to UK on three engines and has sat in Wikipedia since 2009, but today, for some reason you decided that it had to go because it was not notable. Against this background of such heavy editorial policing by the Wikipedia airline experts, I agree, that the odds are not looking good for my article! However, before they don their Black Caps to pass final judgement on it, I still maintain that the article should remain on the basis of meeting the criterion of "change in policy" Wikipedia:Aircrash and WP:GNG. I call on other editors to support my case! I am however somewhat stymied in that the only surviving link to my article was removed by JetBlast at the time of Marking for Deletion and so it is unlikely that any casual reader will find the page. Hence it may only be read only by those editors who have an interest in Articles for Deletion. Do you have any suggestions or is it a lost cause? Thanks again for your feedback! BritAirman (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should become aware that deletion discussions because you disagree with them aren't to be made into personal attacks. I suggest you change your tone before I make a request for this WP:Wikiquette assistance.- William 18:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear William, My sincere apologies - it was certainly not meant to be personal. I simply tried to express my view that the opinion on whether or not a flight incident is 'notable' is very subjective, even for experienced Wikipedia editors. As I said, I do actually very much appreciate your feedback. BritAirman (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to become involved in this argument, but I'd just like to point out that notability requirements -- for commercial aviation accidents and incidents at least -- are pretty well organized and have been summarized both by the nominator and here. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 13:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - I have just noticed that my original "keep" request was removed from my first comment in defence of the article. Just in case this matters, I have reinstated it here. If the rules do not allow me to vote because it is my own article, then please let me know. Thank you! BritAirman (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it as you alredy put "DO NOT DELETE", that is the same as keep. I assumed you duplicated this in error :-) - you have every right to vote :-) --JetBlast (talk) 12:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not really notable even for a mention in BA or B777 article. MilborneOne (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very minor incident, not really notable. - Ahunt (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very KEEP - NOTABLE due to (1) almost death of pedestrians. (2) safety recommendations is changed for industry. (3) and huge jet landing heavy which is VERY uncommon event. --B767-500 (talk) 06:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Gsingh (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and other comments above. The incident has not proven to be notable, and the article has not adequately made a case for its notability thereof. Even the Aviation Safety Network (see here) doesn't include a record of this incident, which is saying something because their database seems to include anything that's even remotely notable. (Yes, I know that's not a valid measurement of notability; I'm just pointing it out for the record.) --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 13:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

1. Thank you for your comments above. Please note though just for the record, that my article does meet the Wikipedia:Aircrash criteria for inclusion by virtue of resulting in a 'change of airline/airport procedures'. So in your requests for deletion, I would be grateful if you could qualify your statements with the prefix, "Although this article does technically meet the Wikipedia:Aircrash inclusion criteria by virtue of leading to a change in procedures, I nevertheless still think it should be deleted because...etc.."

2. My request for keep has now been deleted or scored out by more senior editors three times. In the first instance it was at the end of the paragraph which started 'do not delete' and so I have removed this first quote in case this was cause for confusion, but since it was all signed by me I cannot see how anyone would have counted this entry as two votes. Senior editors should know better than to modify individual contributions on a talk page. If there is issue with protocol then please let me know and I will gladly correct my own talk myself! One delete request was followed up with a request for "burn with fire". I could not find this comment in the Wikipedia guidelines. Does it relate to book burning whereby a small group of individuals destroys knowledge written for the masses because it does not fit with their ideology?

3. I have been doing more research into the incident and I have believe that it meets further notability criteria for being the only airline incident in which a structure has fallen off the aircraft and then reentered the pressurised cabin. I think the article is much improved as a result of these discussions and whatever the outcome, I have learnt a lot. The comments about its deletion are far longer than the actual article itself!

again It was a recommendation and not a forced change in procedure, they are not the same thing. Because of this is does not meet Wikipedia:Aircrash --JetBlast (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no, here is the text copied and pasted from the Wikipedia:Aircrash page: "The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry". A forced or stated as "invoked" change is only in the first section relating to Airports. If I am reading the wrong page then please let me know! If I am correct you may wish to change the reference in your nomination for deletion at the top of this page that started this process. Thanks, BritAirman (talk) 16:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding whether or not there was a change in procedure, here is what the article states,

“

As reported in The Scotsman (Edinburgh) on 10 March 2005, the airline explained that it had made 'several changes to its maintenance systems and procedures' starting immediately after the failure. Further, the airline reported on 9 March 2005, "We note the one recommendation in the AAIB report, which we co-operated with."<_ref>"Plane's door comes off and lands 20ft from couple out for a walk" The Scotsman newspaper, Thursday 10 March 2005</_ref>

”

Unscintillating (talk) 14:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question - what level of compulsion is there with a AIBB recommendation? (for comparison when I am assessed against a certain international standard, there are mandatory and recommended actions. I can take the recommended actions and bin them if I want, but I have to carry out the mandatory ones. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was this question addressed to me? If so, my previous post did not say anything about compulsion, it is a quote from the article that quotes the airline that procedures were changed. Unscintillating (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear JetBlast - I forgot to thank you for taking the time to comment on my article. Indeed, without your initial request for deletion, it would never have been improved to such an extent as has been now. I am genuinely grateful to you for this in the spirit of Wikipedia. I have a question though - I chose at random two other editors who requested deletion of my article and looked at their talkback. I noticed, by chance, that you had personally informed both them of your desire to delete my article before they had even heard of it, or before they had made any comment. Shortly afterwards, both then added their request for deletion to this page (above). Could I ask if it possible for me to canvas votes to keep my article? My wife is a Wikipedia editor but I have told her not to vote to keep my article, because I believe it is against Wikipedia guidelines. I can think of at least 5 other editors whom I could also contact via talkback (as you have done) to canvas votes. Should I do this or is it against the spirit of Wikipedia? Please advise as I am new to this and value the advice of you and others who are expert senior editors. Many thanks, BritAirman (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- "Burn with fire" has zero to do with book burnings, and your comment implying association with it is not really appreciated. The keep !votes were struck because any bolded !vote is a !vote, and "do not delete" = "keep", therefore the "do not delete" was the keep. Also you are not allowed to WP:CANVASS. As for WP:AIRCRASH, once again I'll point out that articles meeting AIRCRASH criteria also have to meet the WP:GNG to have stand-alone articles - meeting WP:AIRCRASH =/= eligible for an article, which the essay itself says. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing further clarification relating to your comment "burn with fire" and for explaining the WP:CANVAS guidelines - I have taken note and no offence was meant. If we now agree that the article does meet WP:AIRCRASH notability, then we can move on to a discussion about general notability as per WP:GNG. I think it does meet this, as the event was covered in at least four national newspapers and the BBC News. Indeed in at least two countries, if you count Scotland as separate from England. Anyway, we are near to the 7 day deadline and I expect it will all be over soon. Thanks again for your input.BritAirman (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and thank you to everyone who has contributed to this discussion.BritAirman (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to British Airways, just not notable enough on its own.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as non-notable per above. With as strong a consensus to Delete as has been exhibited above, BritAirman's filibustering notwithstanding, I'm curious as to why the discussion hasn't yet been closed. Ravenswing 11:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite the well written prose, WP doesn't report on all emergency landings (WP:NOTNEWS). The investigation findings are not so remarkable either that it warrants inclusion in WP. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:55, 12 January 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. Nomination withdrawn after clean-up. (Non-admin closure) Suraj T 18:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Love Ke Chakkar Mein[edit]

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

Non-notable film, fails WP:NF. — Abhishek ^Talk 02:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Abhishek ^Talk 02:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sure was a mess when nominated. I'm happy to report that User:Akb96's unsourced stub article that was nominated for deletion 6 hours after its creation, has NOW been expanded and sourced. Took about an hour to fix up the sorry stub and turn it into something that better serves the project. I think if it remains it will be further improved over time and through regular editing.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Significant coverage now. Passes WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per coverage in IndiaGlitz (see article). Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per reliable sources added and cleanup done by User:MichaelQSchmidt. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the above - good cleanup work, that. No question about notability now. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After taking a look at the article now, I too believe it needs to stay, hence I am withdrawing my nomination. — Abhishek ^Talk 15:11, 4 January 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 Dragon Ball. Jujutacular ^talk 06:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kamehameha dragon ball[edit]

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

Non-notable game feature. 25,000 hits on Yahoo and 122,000 on Google--but most of them are YouTube, fansites and cheatsites. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 02:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dragon Ball or delete. I would say redirect to a list of DB attacks, but I don't see where such a list exists. This is actually sort of a tricky thing here. This is one of those things that I would say is incredibly well known, but lacks any reliable sources that focus on the attack alone. Like HangingCurve said, there's a ton of fansites that talk about this but not a huge amount of reliable sites. What I have found, focuses on the series in general or on specific characters but not specifically on the attack.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Redirect to Dragon Ball or delete per above. Wikipedia is not a game guide. JIP | Talk 08:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This isn't a plausible redirect title and lacks significant mergeable content. As for whether a future, useful article could be created, that's a bit tougher. It's a very borderline case, as while it's a significant enough element of a major series that the sources should exist, good information for these things is tough to track down due to the language barrier, and it can probably be effectively covered between Dragon Ball and Goku anyway. --erachima talk 19:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to List of Dragon Ball video games Redirecting a video game term to an article that is about the series in general is not the best idea here in my opinion, if this is from a certin game or group of games then I would say redirect to that but I am unsure of what article that would be. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a video game term, it was an attack often used by Goku the main character from the Dragonball manga which all the video games were based on. Obviously, several video games based on the manga incorporated this attack since Goku was in most if not all of the games but it was not itself a video game term and was used in the manga first. If we are going to redirect this it will need to be somewhere else.--70.24.207.225 (talk) 05:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - JP Wikipedia does have a stand-alone article [45], but only under the structure of an extensive list of DB signature moves. This EN article is poorly written, and without a list of DB attacks for redirection, is pointlessly orphaned. The JP Wikipedia article contains some trivia but it would be a waste of time to bring any of it to EN Wikipedia. This EN article in its current form is only worth deletion. Jun Kayama 20:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. The reason given for deletion is incorrect. This article is not related to game solely. It is an article related to Manga(and anime). This article could be useful if expanded. It could link to various articles related to Dragonball since it is really notable attack in the series and (I think) it should have an article. However this article in its present form is not suitable for an encyclopedia. It should be either re-written or deleted until a better version of this article is created . I would like to know if there is any objection to the topic of article-"Kamehameha"- since I may end up creating this article again in future. trunks_ishida (talk) 12:30, 6 January 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. Michig (talk) 10:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vadims Fjodorovs[edit]

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

The player hasn't played in a fully professional level and the article is almost empty, doesn't include any external links and has just one reference. LatvianFootball (talk) 23:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per excellent research (as always) from Struway2 below which shows notability. Giant Snowman 17:39, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 11:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NFOOTBALL by having played for FC Tyumen in the Russian Second Division, which according to the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues is fully professional. The ref which presumably confirmed those appearances is dead, but I've added a link to the player's profile at Sportbox.ru, in Russian but it's a stats page so the relevant bits are readable. This page at the same site lists all FC Tyumen's player appearances for the 2002 season: Федоров Вадим is Vadim Fjodorovs. Also added a ref for his being Latvia's gooalkeeper of the year for 2001. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From the links provided above he evidently doesn't fail NFOOTBALL after all, and even has a slight claim to passing WP:ANYBIO through the 2001 award win. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Struway2, as he played in a fully professional league, therefore passing WP:NFOOTY. – Kosm1 fent 11:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Voted as Latvia's Best Goaltender in notable. Reliable third party sources verify achievement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottdrink (talk • contribs) 20:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Struway2 research, Passes WP:NFOOTBALL. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:15, 7 January 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) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 16:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hero's[edit]

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

Unsourced (for 4+ years) article on a promotions company, no indication that they are likely to meet WP:GNG. Mt king ^(edits) 01:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: External links are not enough, ciations are much more beneficial for the article. Superlayna (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep True, it is now defunct, but just looking at the articles cited on the Japanese Wikipedia page for Hero's shows that it was covered by national media, in part because it was co-sponsored by and broadcast on TBS, one of the national TV networks in Japan. I have added a few references to confirm national media coverage. Michitaro (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

routine coverage of sports events does not demonstrate notability, it needs to have received more than that. Mt king ^(edits) 21:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not routine coverage. See WP:SPORTSEVENT. These were broadcast nationwide to millions in prime time (again, TBS is a national broadcast network, like ABC in the USA). Some of the events got a 17% rating, which means 17% of Japanese watching TV at the time were watching Hero's--again numbers in the millions (in Japan, over 15% is considered an unqualified hit show). Doesn't that satisfy a requirement such as "front page coverage outside of the local areas involved"? The national sports papers do not have good online archives, but one can still easily find national coverage of Hero's in such major papers as Sports Hochi or Sponichi. Michitaro (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep While the English version of the article is in poor shape, the Japanese language version of the article can provide guidance for improvements. There are sources about the organization, its events, and some of its controversies (Japanese business news, multiple Yahoo Sports Japan articles [46][47][48], and in MMA media [49][50][51]). Other sources may also be available in Japanese print media. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was a notable mixed martial arts organization during its tenure. Additional sources are needed, but the topic appears to pass GNG. I agree with the above editors.Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 21:41, 3 January 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. Sandstein 09:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SJKC Damansara[edit]

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Damansara, Selangor per standard procedure. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable here.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the ((R from school)) on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:GNG or current school guidelines.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep (or userfy, or something). The article makes a claim for notability as "one of the first Chinese primary schools" in Malaysia. If this claim could be backed up and if the article could be expanded, I'm sure that notability would be satisfied. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree that as it stands the article does not meet our notability standards? Your keep !vote seems to be predicated on :if this claim could be backed up", but we don't keep articles on the bases of claims that are not substantiated by RSs, per our verifiability and notability guidelines. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, as an extension of what you're saying, if someone went through and deleted references from, say, Coca Cola, then that article could be AfD'ed because we must assume that all claims to notability must be untrue? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Are you asserting that someone deleted the refs for this article? If not, do you think that some 8-year-old should be allowed to create a fictitious article on a fictitious person, with fictitious facts that lack refs, and that such articles should be retained because "if the claim could be backed up it would meet our notability standards"? That's not how wp works. This is a fairly core part of wp policy, reflected in WP:VERIFIABILITY. But again -- you haven't answered my above query.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that, prior to bringing this AfD, that you:

raised your concerns regarding notability on the talk page of the article?
attempted to find sources on your own?
contacted the original author of the article to see if s/he had sources?

You know, all the stuff that you're meant to do per WP:Guide_to_deletion#Considerations and WP:BEFORE. As I have noted before (at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Huaian_Foreign_Language_School and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mater_Dolorosa_Catholic_School_(South_San_Francisco)), I think you are being too hasty and not dedicating enough time to the wild abundance of school AfD's that you have put forward. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let' stick with this AfD, and your above statements. You haven't answered my questions, based on your statements. Are you asserting that someone deleted the refs for this article? And again -- you haven't answered my above query -- Do you agree that as it stands the article does not meet our notability standards? Your keep !vote seems to be predicated on :if this claim could be backed up", but we don't keep articles on the bases of claims that are not substantiated by RSs, per our verifiability and notability guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was a rhetorical question, the point of which was to question whether you have or have not followed the process for deletion. So, my three points above, have you done any part of the due process in regards to this AfD (or in fact any of the ~50 school article AfD's that you've proposed)? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to discuss that. But you've ignored my queries, posed first. See my prior post. Your !vote and your comments appear, to me, to be diametrically opposed to each other.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rhetorical question. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was not at all a rhetorical question. You !voted keep. But your rationale supporting your !vote suggest that you do not believe that the article is, as it stands, notable. I do not understand the discrepancy. Please explain it, as it may help the closer. As to your question -- I routinely follow wp:before.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With there being major issues with 10 of the ~50 school AfD's that you've put up, I'm not seeing evidence of your following any aspect of WP:BEFORE. In fact, considering there was 2 minutes between one nomination and this nomination, I think that you didn't do anything at all besides press the XFD button in twinkle. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered your question. You continue to ignore mine, which bears directly on your !vote at this AfD. You've now also suggested that you think I am a liar, which some people might consider perhaps slightly less than civil. I would appreciate it if you would: a) answer my question; and b) try to perhaps limit your communication with me to more civil discourse. Much appreciated.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is clearly a notable school being one of the first Chinese primary schools in Malaysia. With so many school AfDs going through at present I've not had time to investigate further but there will no doubt be other sources available. Dahliarose (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would normally trust that an experienced AfD nominator would have done some prior checking, but the nature of these nomination makes it highly unlikely. In most cases, we are able to compensate by doing checks ourselves, but not at the rate of 230 a day on similar subjects. this is an abuse of process, and attempt to force deletion by not permitting the time to consider he articles properly. In any case, the absolutely minimum would be redirect, and the nom has not here or in any other of his 100 or so school nomination in the last two weeks given any argument against that, and I think neither has anyone else (Indeed, I find it rather hard to imagine any possibly rational argument. Myself, I doubt that being one of the first anythings is as notable a being the first, but I suggest nominating these at the rate or perhaps one or two a week, so they can be investigated properly. Keep, because there's a decent chance of notability and it needs further consideration. DGG ( talk ) 07:53, 11 January 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 Maadi. Jujutacular ^talk 16:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maadi British International School[edit]

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

Primary-year 8 schools are not generally notable under wp standards, and are subject to deletion/redirect; this appears to be one of the NN ones. Epeefleche (talk) 22:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since it does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG and per WP:OUTCOMES#Schools. Edison (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to locality per standard procedure. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the ((R from school)) on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to locality or school governing body per longstanding consensus. I'm also expressing concern with the large numbers of school nominations at the moment; it can't be expected that all editors be able to respond to this mass act of deletionist ideology. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Google search doesn't turn up any in-depth coverage in third-party sources; most of the hits I get contain only information from the school's website, or include a brief mention of it in a directory or list of ratings with many other schools. Nothing in the article itself suggests that evidence of notability might be found elsewhere. Ammodramus (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- and that's why we generally redirect them with a mention in a parent article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:33, 13 January 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. Michig (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SuperKombat: Fight Club[edit]

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

This event fails the WP:EVENT#Inclusion criteria with no "enduring historical significance" or any "significant lasting effect" demonstrated. The coverage that exists is purely of the routine nature any sports match gets. Mt king ^(edits) 00:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no indication that this event passes WP:SPORTSEVENT. Coverage appears to be routine sports reporting. Jakejr (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:SPORTSEVENT and is WP:ROUTINE. Even for this organization, the event was relatively minor. Astudent0 (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the previous comments. Papaursa (talk) 00:50, 7 January 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. Given that there is plenty of regret (Hobit: "really cool", "really well done"; Dawn Bard "really well done, and I hope there's another venue where it can be posted"), while it has been deleted from Wikipedia, the article has been transwikied to Wikiversity and can be seen at v:Katie Harwood. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Harwood[edit]

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

An odd one regarding a somewhat minor character in a film, mostly consisting of in-universe extrapolations and quite a lengthy amount of well-sourced but almost entirely WP:SYNTH based religious symbolism contained within the film. Aside from that, it's doubtful the character has any out of universe significance to exist as an article even one by a dedicated though entirely solo editor. Marks against this article are for concerns of WP:NN, WP:SYNTH at least as far as the character's (and consequently the film's) apparent symbology goes and WP:NOT#ESSAY. tutterMouse (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but Userfy Unusual one, obviously a lot of effort has gone into this one, but I agree that it's all rather too WP:SYNTH and the character is not otherwise sufficiently notable to address the WP:NN issue. Pol430 talk to me 20:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Way, way too much WP:OR, but really cool and, from the parts I read, really well done. This isn't what Wikipedia strives to be. We want to record things done elsewhere, we don't want original research, no matter how good. Hobit (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's really well done, and I hope there's another venue where it can be posted so others can see it, but Wikipedia is not the place for it, per original research, in-universe, notability. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reasoning[edit]

I appreciate everyone’s input and suggestions. Upon receiving your feedback, I have come to the realization that the Katie article was perhaps approached from too much of an academic standpoint. Conceivably, such a complex subject might have been a little too ambitious for my first attempt at an article. I did not fully comprehend that sources are not required in articles to "assert notability" - there is no policy to that effect that I can see.

No matter who writes the article on Katie, however, I believe the basis and rational for having a Katie article is sound. Just because I have seen numerous articles on WP concerning characters I would definitely consider "minor", obscure and unimportant doesn’t mean that the articles shouldn’t be there do to my lack of understanding.

Below is the rationale behind my reasoning:

1. Those involved with the Ghost Ship film’s creation stated that the character of Katie was unusual and complex.
2. Katie is the only character from Ghost Ship to have her own special movie trailer. See part of it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJK8PIfySOQ
3. The notable following Katie as a character has had, even after nearly a decade (as demonstrated online).
4. Reviewers citing Emily Browning’s portrayal of Katie as the standout character in the film.
5. Katie’s unique connection bridging the fictional world to the non-fictional world, such as through the symbolic Gustave Dore murals as related with Dante’s Divine Comedy, the The Inferno, and the storyline.
6. Katie’s unusual fit (or lack there of) in the story coincides with the statements made by the cast and crew that the film was not originally intended to be a “slasher” horror production. This is already cited on the Ghost Ship article page.
7. The plot hinges on Katie, and without her, the storyline collapses. It stands to reason if no story, then no Ghost Ship movie. If no movie, then no WP article. Furthermore, if no Katie then no international role for actress Emily Browning and possibly no nomination for an acting award which she later won.
8. Katie marked the international Hollywood debut of actress Emily Browning and marked a turning point in her career.
9. I began by choosing a topic I was very knowledgeable about Katie Harwood which had direct connections to these established WP articles: Ghost Ship movie, plus Emily_Browning (living persons/notable actors) and modeled it after another article regarding an Emily Browning character; Violet_Baudelaire.
10. Notoriety by nature is subjective. Only the inertia of time and history will reveal the true significance of a character and is dependent upon numerous extraneous variables such as; sequels, the future of the actress, and other stories which find their influence in the Ghost Ship film and Katie as a character.
11. Some things that may be considered unique or unusual to some actually have greater significance and merit, because they are different.

These are my thoughts. In light of WP guidelines, I welcome any ideas from more experienced WP writers about what I wrote well and what I can do to improve. Tola73 20:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tola73 (talk • contribs)

WP:GNG does make it clear sources are required to establish notability, it varies from case to case but that's why it's a general guideline. Your reasoning is sound in some ways but is far from what is wanted for Wikipedia as much of it is unsourced or is original research which cannot be accepted as grounds for keeping an article. I have issues with most of the points mainly because they're entirely conjectural, opinion or unrelated to the character as a notable creation. Because of that I'm still unconvinced this article needs to be kept, I would suggest to edit content which is established to be notable before making your own articles regarding fictional characters which is a hairy place for new editors to begin with. tutterMouse (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am grateful for your feedback TutterMouse. I concede the article needs to be rewritten from a different frame or reference. What has been confusing is hearing different things from different people and seeing other WP articles on like subjects stand with similar lines of thought. For instance, what is your take on citing interviews and behind the scenes features from a DVD? What about official movie production notes? Is this OR? What about checking the assertions made by those involved with the creation of the film and its characters by citing separate sources? Do I need to actually rip portions of the DVD video and scan production notes and upload them to WP in order to satisfy requirements? If there is a good example of an article that you could recommend on a fictitious film character that satisfies all the WP criteria listed above please let me know.

As far as the 11 points of reasoning listed above, it's just that; a line of logical thought. With the exception of the second part of #7, further sources can be provided to back up the other statements. I believed the need to delve deeper in what was said above to be unnecessary due to the length and complexity. Additionally, after viewing other WP articles, which to the best of my understanding, barley come close to meeting the WP standards for notoriety, I reasoned anything additional would be a textbook case of "overkill," which by the way is the real underlying issue with the original Katie article.

I am not a fan of the Ghost Ship film, but if you investigate the sources given regarding Katie, you should discover a character with a substantial amount of notability, or at least more notability than some of the indistinct charters with their own WP page or list. Follow me up on this and see if you reach the same conclusion. I believe the evidence supports the criteria for at least a mention of Katie, albeit a redone article. If given the chance, I would chop the article down to just simple statements and reduce it to basics. This way it would be much more concise and easier to verify. Tola73 01:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC) 04:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Nothing you've given me so far changes the fundamental issue, the character isn't notable. It doesn't matter if I go and find you examples of other characters because those other characters aren't relevant to this discussion, it's about this character and not others. Right now, I'd support userfying the article but having it exist in mainspace simply isn't happening without third party sourcing. Using the production notes or DVD extras doesn't mean anything as it's all primary sourcing and I know, others do use it but it doesn't mean they're legitimate sources for notability purposes. I don't think the issue is overkill as you feel it might be implied, I'm thinking that a lot of what made up the article regarding the character's apparent status as some religious cipher isn't necessary because through all of it it feels like a great deal is being made out of something very little (that specific little thing being OR in itself) so to me it's an overdose of WP:SYNTH, not length though it is dense reading. Condense by all means but I think you should keep a copy in userspace should it be deleted and work on it there. tutterMouse (talk) 06:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Tola73's essay in support of the article notwithstanding, the subject just plain fails of notability. Whether the character is "unusual and complex," appears in a movie trailer, allegedly has a following, is central to the plot of the movie or was an actress' first role are all irrelevant. The criterion the article must meet to be sustained is simply "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." (emphasis mine) So ... are there newspaper or print magazine articles which discuss this character in significant detail? If there are, an article can be sustained.
Does this set the bar rather high for articles about fictional characters? Indeed so. Ravenswing 11:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nom that this violates WP:SYNTH and WP:NOT#ESSAY. The in-depth discussion is also far too WP:INDISCRIMINATE for a secondary character in a run-of-the-mill horror movie. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:14, 12 January 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. (non-admin closure) Bryce (talk | contribs) 13:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

William Wilson Underhill[edit]

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

Another WP:NN underhill, citable only by NYT obituary (pretty much a local paper in 1935) and primary sources from WP:NN club.

Related AFDs:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estelle Skidmore Doremus
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Harris Underhill
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Underhill Society of America Toddst1 (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep- The subject received a full editorial obit in the New York Times and such an obit has always been considered to be irrefutable evidence of notability. An editorial obit in the New York Times is unlike a local newspaper obit that everyone in the town my get, or a paid obit. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Harris Underhill where similar justification is used by User:DGG. IDKremer (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I was Placepromo and now am using a different name.IDKremer (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep President of a major insurance company. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 02:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability established by an editorial obituary by the New York Times (who doesn't write editorial obits for everyone) and other references. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:53, 1 January 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3 Minutes World Silence[edit]

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

This is an obscure one-woman movement; and the founder of this movement is also the primary editor of the article. The sourcing is trivial and inappropriate; the notability seems to me to be almost non-existent (Pravda of that era is not exactly a reliable source). Orange Mike | Talk 00:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This movement is not the subject of WP:BASIC substantial in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources. Agree that the sourcing available reflects trivial coverage, and that this article exists at all because of efforts by a COI editor, and my research hasn't found any indication of notability. JFHJr (㊟) 19:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with Orange Mike completely. –Ugncreative Usergname (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2012 (UTC) ~~Now with Sp33dyphil's comment I'm not sure whether to keep or not.~~ Back to delete; sources aren't good enough.[reply]

Comment I've found [52], [53], and [54]. Never mind about the reliability of Pravada, the fact that the movement was talked about by the official newspaper of the largest and the second most powerful country gives it some credibility. After all, it was supported in many countries. Has anybody searched the topic in Russian? --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 07:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- reply The Soviets were notorious for puffing anything they could portray as a "peace movement" in the West; that was my point. As to the three sources you list: one is a link I can't open to a PDF hosted on something called the Garnaut Climate Change Review; the second is a local TV station "Local woman calls for peace" squib; and the third is a document written by Cassini herself, on a music website. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
information - Cassini herself (Aweaver2) has requested the deletion of this article. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:35, 10 January 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. Clearly there is no consensus to delete, though I don't see that we've really done much to establish notability.--Kubigula (talk) 04:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Esteban[edit]

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

There is no impact from this character herself. I could not find significant coverages of this characters from secondary and other non-primary sources that are independent of this subject. News sources that I have found consisted of only summaries of soap operas, which do not indicate notability. Books... I don't know if books indicate notability of this character; scholars I haven't searched yet. There are no commonly accepted guidelines or policies that may help indicate notability of fictional characters; essays, like WP:Notability (fiction), do not count. It may fail GNG, but some may disagree and prove me wrong with offline sources. Her own storylines, including Craig Montgomery and Sierra Esteban, do not help indicate impact from this character at all; reliable sources are still yet to be found. ~~George Ho (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Almost forgot: List of As the World Turns characters is merely a directory with many omitted abstracts, including of this character; I don't think this article is worth redirecting to there. --George Ho (talk) 00:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looking under "Sierra Esteban As the World Turns," there seems to be some notability there. George, why would you nominate this article for deletion if you "don't know if books indicate notability of this character"? You are supposed to check every aspect when it comes to determining whether a character meets Wikipedia's notability standards or not. This character has existed for a long time, and characters that have existed for a long time are likely to be documented in scholarly work. You have been advised on this before, to be more thorough with your searches. Simply using the general Google search engine and Google News will not do. Flyer22 (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have recently checked; I could not find books that significantly cover this character alone. Without Craig, Sierra is, even if a long-time character, not notable alone. The only coverages she receives are trivial, such as a book of baby names. By the way, I left out "Esteban" to widen the search; I still found none significant in Google Books, unless Craig is also mentioned. --George Ho (talk) 04:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Also, the soap opera recaps in third-party sources do not determine the notability of this character, even if they determine the truth of character's storylines instead. Soap opera recaps about this character in any editions of a periodical, such as Soap Opera Weekly or Soap Opera Digest, to me, do not count as "significant coverages," unless they are proven to determine notability of this character. Recaps are recaps and may validate accuracy of plots, but receptions and impact are, to me, significant coverages. I could not find sources to indicate reception for this character alone, and I could not find impact from this character from any source, as well. Do you think this AfD is a waste of space? --George Ho (talk) 05:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure how notable this character is, if there is any true notability by Wikipedia standards for her, outside of her pairing with Craig (and I see you prodded that, her couple article, for deletion as well), but I would say that this article would have been better off being redirected. Just remember that some notable topics may have little to support their notability online, but a lot supporting it offline. Redirecting articles such as this is always better because it's possible that an editor who can provide notability may come along. Flyer22 (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - ...If you want to challenge the PROD, be bold! Still, ~~I'm currently searching Craig and Sierra~~; my search for Sierra is over, and, as mentioned before, offline sources are too obscure nowadays. No microfilms were saved, except in some libraries, including UCLA. Issues were too disposable. No subsequent publications of older works have been made. There's nothing else I can do to establish notability of this topic. However, I may be wrong; some fansites have preserved these precious articles; no one else can do that. --George Ho (talk) 06:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - (edit conflict) I could not find the couple in Google News. I found two sources that may or may not help establish notability of Sierra and Craig together: [55] and [56]. The first one is trivial and refers the couple as "romantic longings of twentyish Craig and Sierra." The second... well, it uses the couple to compare the Christian beliefs. That such amount is too small to help the couple pass GNG. However, that is all I can do. ~~--George Ho (talk) 06:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)~~ Wait... http://www.amazon.com/Alive-2-S-Rickly-Christian/dp/0310499119/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1#reader_0310499119. I did search "Sierra Craig" in the second source; turns out to be trivial, as well. Both are, overall, trivial. That source was comparing the soap opera with general Christian beliefs. --George Ho (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep " books that significantly cover this character alone "is an absurd criterion, way beyond WP:N. There seem to be sufficient sources. Using the couple to illustrate Christian beliefs is, contra the comment above, significant coverage. DGG ( talk ) 08:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay... challenge the deletion of Craig Montgomery and Sierra Esteban in WP:REFUND if you can prove notability with this Christian book. The book used snippet of the recap from newspaper to compare Christian theories. The recap itself doesn't prove the notability of either this character or the couple; rather it proves the events that happened on TV. Why are recaps considered significant coverages? To me they are not. Recaps are written because soap opera episodes may not be rebroadcast again in the future, especially in the current era where Soapnet is going, going... gone! True, recaps are secondary sources that recap primary sources; I don't see hints of notability. The theory talks about flipping the channel and neglecting reality, unless I've misread it.
- ...Oh, boy. I have over and over attempted to convince you that recaps do not indicate significant coverages. I don't have sources to prove my theory about soap recaps, but... I don't know who's right or wrong, but maybe I must discuss soap recaps in WP:RSN or somewhere to prove that using recaps as proof of notability is not good. I don't know what you are thinking, but recaps are trivial coverages to me. What are your examples of proving notability? --George Ho (talk) 09:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per good arguments by Flyer and DGG. Bearian (talk) 22:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How are my arguments, on the other hand? --George Ho (talk) 22:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, you seem to be arguing that the article can not be expanded in any way and no more than two sources can be located ... I think that, here, it's a weak argument. Bearian (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any more to add to whether or not this article should be deleted. George, I just want to point out that recaps are not only written because the episode may never be rebroadcast. Like for shows of other genres, recaps may also be provided for those who would rather not watch the episode or because it may be some time before the episode reruns. Flyer22 (talk) 22:27, 10 January 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. Michig (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Treg Setty[edit]

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

As a college athlete, Setty does not (yet?) meet the criteria for inclusion for sportspeople. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, being all-state--even in Kentucky--is not enough to pass WP:ATH. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 02:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete appears to fail WP:NCOLLATH, however, a quick Google search appears to show a scouting report ([57]) and some local attention. -- Luke (Talk) 19:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a notable player per NCOLLATH. Jrcla2 (talk) 07:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable yet. No significant news coverage, no major awards, no records. He may get there, but right now he's just one of a couple thousand D1 college players. Also worth noting that this is the second nomination. The article author just deleted a PROD notice earlier. Nice photo, though. Rikster2 (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG with only WP:ROUTINE coverage. Does not meet WP:NCOLLATH either.—Bagumba (talk) 16:21, 5 January 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.