< 19 July	21 July >

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

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Experimental post office[edit]

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

I'm not sure whether this counts as a WP:Neologism or just as an unnotable concept, but in any case, this appears to be something that does not pass the GNG. This whole idea seems to have been a completely local phenomenon, as the only reference I can find that talks about this is in a college paper. This phrase/concept does not seem to have gained any widespread use. Rorshacma (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note I forgot to mention that while the phrase "Experimental Post Office" does get hits during searches, none of these are referring to this concept, but rather are news releases talking about things like physical post office that have an experimental quality in their construction, or making use of an experimental new sorting machine. Rorshacma (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article is about a specific organization called the Experimental Post Office (probably not notable per WP:ORG) which is being mistakenly portrayed as a generic type. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't even an organization, but a group of people at a college who have an informal and experimental way of delivering messages. It hasn't received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:GNG). First Light (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a nonnotable fun project of a few students at a small Midwestern college. The only source is their college newspaper. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not really finding any outside coverage or reason to believe this meets WP:GNG Ducknish (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed with WP:GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:02, 25 July 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) Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 00:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Haugland[edit]

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

Article reads like a resume. "Sources" are simply links to homepages. Nothing substantial at all about this guy. I think he fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:PROF. v/r - T P 23:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google Scholar search for R P Haugland gives an h-index of 58 with a couple of papers cited more than 1000 times. This gives an overwhelming pass of WP:Prof#C1 in the field of Chemistry, a field that is cited only moderately. Having said that, the BLP is not well written and needs pruning at least. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Regardless of WP:PROF, WP:V and WP:BLP come into play here. We have a huge biography of a living person that has zero reliable sources at all. Not a single one.--v/r - TP 14:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not exactly. There are numerous sources that prove notability (his enormous citation record) and that is sufficient for this article to exist (which is what we're debating here). I agree that the article is large and there aren't many sources for the information within the article. That suggests appropriate pruning to eliminate WP:OR. The distinction between the article's existence and its contents is subtle, but crucial. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
    - Actually, you are completely wrong. WP:N is not and never has been license to ignore WP:BLP and WP:V. The entire article will have to be "pruned" because the entire article is WP:OR until sources are found. You cannot have a WP:BLP without reliable sources. WP:PROF, being a notability guideline is still superseded by WP:V. Find sources or the only outcome any administrator closing this AFD can make is delete per BLP and V. When you say "there aren't many sources", you mean there are no sources; check them yourself. Not a one is about the subject.--v/r - TP 17:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - With very highly cited people like Dr. Haugland, it's usually a trivial exercise to find lots of additional supporting WP:RS for the content. I found several sources in a few minutes and incorporated them into a new lead-in. You could have easily done the same, but perhaps you did not bother to check. Rest assured this article will be kept, again because Haugland passes WP:PROF #1 by a large margin. You may quibble with the content (and again, I think that needs work), but his notability is not in question. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
        Or, alternatively, since you seem to know more about the field than I, you could've simply provided the sources in the first place instead of a drive by !vote knowing the issue was sourcing on a BLP. Now that it's sourced, I have no other concerns and this can be closed.--v/r - T P 22:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I know nothing of the field. I'm not a chemist, nor had I ever heard of Haugland before this AfD. I do know how to check for citations and sources, though. As I said, it took only a few minutes. Please follow WP:BEFORE next time. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per above.BennyHillbilly (talk) 07:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. WoS concurs with Xxanthippe's GS findings. He has an enormous citation record: 497, 447, 406, ... with an H-index of 42. This is many standard deviations above our usual borderline range of 10-15 and conclusive pass of WP:PROF #1. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 15:19, 23 July 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Riot (action figure)[edit]

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

A very minor fictional character that only appeared as a single action figure. While there actually is a minor Spider-man character named "Riot", this action figure is apparantly not based off of that character, and is instead an original creation. Aside from the single source included in the article, the only other reference I can find to this toy is listings in toy price guides, that I do not feel really establish any sort of notability. Thus, this toy does not pass the GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can ascertain that it exists via listing on eBay and whatnot, but there is simply no significant coverage about this action figure. -- Whpq (talk) 14:20, 23 July 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). Thine Antique Pen 17:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Massacre (2nd nomination)

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

Delete. This is, ahem, the dictionary definition of a dictionary definition. Discussion from 2011 on this topic resulted in no consensus. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a valid subject with widespread usage in multiple language, application in cultures all over the world, and with examples throughout history. It deserves to be described and explored, and there is enough subject material for a full article. I would have thought it inconceivable that editors would want to delete this entry; one might as well delete articles such as War, Battle, or Riot, as they are both contentious concepts, and open to legal and colloquial interpretations. The entry for Massacre has potential to be a decent-sized article, and just because previous attempts have been stalled by uncooperative editors is not justification to summarily delete the page.Boneyard90 (talk) 04:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete as dictionary definition.~~ Carrite (talk) 04:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will get out of the way to ease the determination of consensus. Carrite (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd like to point out you're talking about deleting a pretty high-profile article. Check the page views, it gets about 15,000 views per month. With all the events that are being called "massacre", it's pretty valid for readers to want to read about it. The page just needs some work. Boneyard90 (talk) 04:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - valid high traffic entry for an encyclopedia, added a few lines to shift the focus from pure definition to the difficulties in usage of the term, should be expanded much more though, good source for anyone volunteering eg Levene, Mark; Roberts, Penny, eds. (1999). The Massacre in History. Studies on War and Genocide. Vol. 1. Oxford/New York: Berghahn. ISBN 1571819355.. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see the reason for deletion here. It's a valid subject.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. - DonCalo (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not just a dictionary definition, as stated in the AfD nom, but a category of events that can be described for the purpose of a single article. While it could be expanded, I don't think there's a strong justification for deleting the article. In such an important topic area, I lean towards keeping. -- Lord Roem (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - high traffic of visits to this article is evidence that our core readership, students, read this stuff. They do not go to Wiktionary, they go to English Wikipedia. That by itself, is reason to keep it, IMHO. However, I would keep this also based on past precedent; we keep such 'concept' articles. Please see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious violence, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Backroad, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaos, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sisu, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Velleity, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nursing in pakistan, and so forth. The consensus in the past has almost always to keep these types of articles, so to delete this one would probably require a complete re-write of WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article is more then just a dictionary definition, it is a high traffic article and its use could be made to be a disambiguation page or redirect at worst. Deleting it will serve no purpose. See Murder. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of coverage in secondary sources, as evidenced by sheer number of books covering subject matter with term in their titles. — Cirt (talk) 02:27, 27 July 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Herzer[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the notability criteria for martial artists (WP:MANOTE) or military (WP:MILNG). PROD was removed with comment "article actually shows some RS", but all the sources given are either from his school, student, or organization--none of which can be considered independent, reliable sources. Papaursa (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Pretty highly ranked in a well known style of karate hence the weak but still not that notable both in impact (not even mentioned in the article on Wadō-ryū).Peter Rehse (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has no independent sources and fails to show the subject meets any notability criteria. Mdtemp (talk) 15:02, 26 July 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. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Live-opinion Sharing[edit]

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

This is an interesting case. It started life (at Live vote) as an umambiguous plug for something called Yep Papa!, and was deleted accordingly. It has come back without mention of that specifically but otherwise near identical in its focus. The idea of real-time voting is not especially novel and takes many forms and names, and yet the article is very narrowly focussed, eg the specific terminology and detail such as "the first step is to download a mobile phone app". If you strip out such specifics and anything which needs referencing (and none of it is referenced at all) then you end up with nothing much more than a dictionary definition - and probably one that is a neologism at that. As such, there is no article here. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only is the article poorly written, but also has no references o back it up, which may indicate that it may be a hoax. --GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 22:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Redirect~~ to Keypad polling, Televoting, or something similar. This isn't a hoax, but it also isn't new. Marketers have been doing variations of this for decades, and a mobile phone app has never been a requirement. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed !vote to delete; if there's no consensus to redirect then it should be deleted, not kept. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:23, 6 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:32, 13 July 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is terrible and lacks references, but the concept seems to be notable enough. What distinguishes this from keypad polling or televoting seems to be that voting/sharing here is carried out using an app on smart phones. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes you think the concept is notable enough? It needs to be reliably established to be so. RichardOSmith (talk) 21:41, 23 July 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) Electric Catfish 15:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bar Keepers Friend[edit]

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

This stub page is an ad for a non-notable product BadDoggie (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 11:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The topic meets WP:GNG per:

Schouten, Cory (May 12, 2011). "Bar Keepers Friend parent lands new headquarters". Indianapolis Business Journal. Retrieved July 6, 2012. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Bar Keepers Friend". Indiana Business Magazine. April 1, 1994. Retrieved July 6, 2012. (subscription required)

Concerns about promotional tone can be addressed through editing. —Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:49, 7 July 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, KTC (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A very well known product of long standing, passes WP:GNG; check out the extensive GNews and GBooks hits for more evidence of this. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:19, 13 July 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Arxiloxos. Perhaps this is a COI, but, I use it ;-) (It's under my kitchen sink right now!) Sarah (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of references in Google Books, product is more than 100 years old, and proposed deletion text does not provide a rationale for non-notability. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all "keep" recommendations above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:10, 21 July 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Business-to-Consumer[edit]

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

WP:DICTDEF. This is a self-explanatory term used to describe one of several electronic business models; they are all listed at electronic business#Classification by provider and consumer and if necessary should be described there rather than in subarticles of this kind. Sandstein 15:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per "not a dictionary." Borock (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 14:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about the other articles referenced in Electronic business#Classification by provider and consumer though, do you think they should all be merged there? Some have significantly more information then this one. Amalthea 06:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a case-by-case matter. I haven't looked at all of them, but if they are individually notable and go beyond a dictionary definition, they can probably remain. Sandstein 07:41, 21 July 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, →Σ σ ς. 02:35, 13 July 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable neologism unlikely to be expanded beyond a dictionary definition due to its extreme breadth. G. C. Hood (talk) 02:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but possibly redirect to electronic business#Classification by provider and consumer as that gives some info on what the phrase means and particularly the context in which it is used. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:00, 23 July 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Web Drifter[edit]

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:WEB & WP:GNG. No sources found. Otterathome (talk) 19:10, 5 July 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 July 5. Snotbot t • c » 19:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of at least six nominations by the same nominator for programming by Revision3 : Web Drifter, Infected by Martin Sargent AfD, GeekBeat.TV AfD, Thebroken AfD, HD Nation AfD, IFanboy AfD. Anarchangel (talk) 21:30, 9 July 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, KTC (talk) 01:50, 13 July 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep or merge to Revision3. It's got a few mentions online but mostly quite brief[1][2]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Martin Sargent would make more sense, as the show is about him going places and interviewing people.--Otterathome (talk) 10:23, 29 July 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. That is, not delete. Whether or not it should be merged can continue to be discussed on the talk page. Sandstein 08:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Knight (video game)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article fails general notability criteria. If we had an article for every canceled videogame, Wikipedia would have to double its servers. The article should never have been made in the first place. Feedback ^☎ 21:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Feedback ^☎ 21:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put the relevant information (developers and $101 million estimate) into the main Dark Knight article then. Connor Behan (talk) 07:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that a small section in Batman Begins (video game) detailing the failed sequel would be relevant, but it should stay away from The Dark Knight's page. Anything more substantial than a small sentence saying a planned video game adaptation was never produced would be too trivial for the article. Then again, I wouldn't challenge a consensus to merge them though. I just don't think this subject warrants its own article. Feedback ^☎ 10:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Dark Knight (film) as there's always a section for a film-based game in the actual film article (should there be a game). Since it has no independent notability it's an easy merge. Also to the nominator, please see Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. --Teancum (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't believe keeping this will cause wikipedia to "double its servers". There obviously are a many articles about various ships, planes, software, etc. where the item never made it off the drawing board. That alone isn't a valid criteria. Batman is a major franchise so this "crash and burn" story is notable. --MarsRover (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The game, regardless of release status, is covered enough to be independently notable and is worth of its own article. Ducknish (talk) 01:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"While I agree that there's notability to retain the information, this article is nothing more than a longer version of "it was canceled". There is no further information (such as gameplay information), which is why I'm pushing for a merge instead. --Teancum (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Batman Begins (video game)#Sequel. Belongs in the video game page, not the movie page. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:30, 28 July 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 Spell (paranormal). Deleted before redirecting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spellcasting[edit]

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

Basically the same topic as spell (paranormal); the content of this article here seems unsalvageable (original research, inappropriate tone). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 21:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points. Would you say that it would be better to turn this into a redlink, or to redirect it to spell (paranormal)?—S Marshall T/C 22:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect there, yes. I already tried but I was reverted, so here's the discussion. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, there isn't much to be salvaged here, and it slants heavily toward fictional contexts. I don't think a merge is appropriate. --BDD (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say merge. I said redirect.—S Marshall T/C 09:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's fine. It just seems like I see a lot of merge results at AfD recently that really should be deleted, so I thought it was worth pointing out that there isn't really anything to merge. --BDD (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Violates WP:SIGCOV by not listing sources, not addressing verifiability, and not generating reliability by ignoring those elements. Granted the article is informative in it's own way, but it needs to fit accepted norms for submission. Ren99 (talk) 10:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect if appropriate target can be found. The article seems like WP:OR and has zero references to support WP:GNG. The content of the article makes it sound as if gaming spellcasting was a major focus, which does not seem to be a focus of the spell (paranormal) article. - Sangrolu (talk) 12:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to [spell (paranormal]- I see no reason to keep the article but I feel like it's still a term that may be searched and should have a redirect. Ducknish (talk) 01:39, 25 July 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Franscesco Caruso[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CRIME. The article includes claims of infamous notability, but there are no reliable references to be found to support this claim. No results from Google News, Books on the subject besides the LaCosaNostra result listed in the article. --IShadowed 21:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, Google News appears to provide one paywalled article, contrary to the statement in the nomination of none available. Here's [the link]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One mention in a newspaper does not establish notability, fails WP:CRIME. Moreover, another "contribution" of User:King Genovese or his sockpuppet User:Evan12345678910, a user blocked for the repeated creation of numerous articles on non-notable individuals affiliated with crime.--DonCalo (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Caruso does not pass WP:GNG or WP:CRIME.--Vic49 (talk) 00:55, 22 July 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 Deleted under G7; no prejudice against creation of a new article. Wily D 06:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dayanara Ryelle[edit]

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

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

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

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

Characterized online as a "fanfiction author", she does not meet our notability guidelines for biographies or WP:AUTHOR. I have not been able to find any independent reliable sources indicating notability. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-published via Lulu, which attracts no notability; I can find no reliable sources indicating that an arm's-length expert has ever given critical attention to her or her books. Ubelowme _U ^Me 21:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fan fiction entries are two years old and some are even older (like the listing from fanfiction.net under the name "Dayanara Ryelle" which doesn't even represent a valid account). If we could change Google that easily, then we would all make ourselves look like celebrities, would we not? Furthermore, if we wait for "famous" third parties like Publisher's Weekly and The Wall Street Journal to review independently published and small-time authors, we'd miss a lot of good literature. Despite the vanity issue that arises when authors use sites like Lulu and CreateSpace, some people just can't get published on a traditional basis.

Not to mention the fact that her website is reporting over 300 copies "sold" through the Kindle Lending Program's free book promotion. Surely that has to be worth something. Jamie's FanGirl (talk) 05:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC) (Edited by Jamie's FanGirl on July 21, 2012 at 10:52p EDT)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Jamiesfangirl (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.
Keep. E.L. James started as a fan fiction author and you wouldn't dare look down your noses at her! Besides, how is one supposed to gain "notoriety", as you say, if all avenues are not open to them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.82.64.144 (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that having a Wikipedia article is an "avenue" to gaining "notoriety"? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this person is saying, "How do you expect people to become famous if you quash the ability for people to research them?"

Keep. I heard on Twitter that some of Ryelle's intended reviewers are relatively new Amazon users and they aren't allowed to review because borrowing her books don't count toward Amazon's "wait 48 hours after purchasing before reviewing" rules. You shouldn't hold that against her or Jamiesfangirl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.179.119.115 (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. "I heard on Twitter" is not a useful argument here, even if you could produce appropriately-dated quotes from Twitter (which I very much doubt is possible, but don't waste your time proving me wrong), because Twitter users and/or Amazon reviewers are not arm's-length third-party sources of expert opinion and thus their statements are of negligible value to this discussion. The function of Wikipedia is not to turn any and all self-published writers into E.L. James -- its function is to document them after they attain that level of notability. Ubelowme _U ^Me 18:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, if you don't have citations from some high and mighty source, forget ever making a page...the WikiElitists will look down their noses at you and get your page deleted as soon as possible. My question is, how much longer are you guys going to continue refuting my work? Why not stop wasting your time and just delete the bloody page already? Or is looking down your nose at me much more fun? Jamiesfangirl (talk) 06:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Also, looks like a lot of socks supporting the article here. Closing admin should ignore them. Qworty (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the template posted by Shawn, it's not the number of votes that count, it's the content within the votes that counts. Remember "good faith"? Or do you not put much stock in templates? Jamiesfangirl (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Perspective[edit]

I would like to say that the comment that "this is not a ballot" evokes the statement, "Oh, wonderful. Then the WikiElitists will turn this whole thing in their favor, delete the article and it will be all over." But that would be sour grapes. Instead, I think I shall use the opportunity to ask you to enlighten me.

If this is not a ballot and not a popularity contest (despite Shawn's comment that the big issue is a lack of notoriety on Ms. Ryelle's part), then why, therefore, is there a link to a website that provides a vote count? Surely a vote count doesn't mean anything if the moderators in charge of pages being deleted are taking everyone's arguments "in good faith"? (Am I missing something here?) Jamiesfangirl (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Taylor (martial artist)[edit]

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

This is a BLP about a martial artist with no independent sources. There's also no indication that he meets any of the notability criteria at WP:MANOTE. There's a lot of claims about being on the same teams as notable individuals, but notability is not inherited. Running a school and being a 7th dan are not sufficient to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination.Peter Rehse (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent evidence beyond a list of events. BennyHillbilly (talk) 06:02, 23 July 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 A7 by Dmacks. NAC—S Marshall T/C 21:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Fallen Star (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable local band. Can't find any sources to improve the article, fails WP:GNG. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 20:20, 20 July 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 Jehovah's Witnesses publications#Become Jehovah.27s Friend.E2.80.94Listen.2C Obey.2C and Be Blessed. Information has already been merged to the target. Futher information can be merged if desired from history. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sparlock[edit]

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

"Sparlock" is a fictional toy in a video produced by the Jehovah's Witnesses. It has taken on a certain life on the Internet, but reliable sources discussing it are not immediately apparent. Does this subject meet Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion? Or is it just a coatrack on which to hang commentary about the Jehovah's Witnesses? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I mean I am a JW myself but I am also in favor of being fair and balanced on Wikipedia. This article definitly is a coatrack. The first paragraph is about the main topic (Sparlock) but after that it goes down a negative bias path and doesn't let up. After reading (and editing/adding clarifications to) the article (WP:Coatrack) the article is guilty of several types of Coatrackery: fact-picking for one. Also Weasel Words (which I have noted). This article makes me sick as a Wikipidean (never mind my religious inclinations) totally Negative-POV and biased I say Delete! Andy_Howard (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 16:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That video is hilarious/depressing, but not in the least bit notable. A passing internet fad with no lasting impact, and no coverage in anything that passes for a reliable source. DoctorKubla (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In case it's not obvious, my !vote is ~~Delete~~. DoctorKubla (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I declined a speedy as I reckoned the DVDs ruled out speedy as web content, and recommended AfD as this appeared somewhat contentious. (However, FQ got it here first...) Unless it gets referenced a bit better, I think it will have to go. Whether it's a coatrack for or an attack on the Witnesses, I wouldn't care to say. It may just be a bit of reporting by a neutral. Whichever, the production of this dare I call it a fairy tale seems to have backfired. (What did people say for 'backfire' before cars?) I'll be watching this with interest (which is more than I'm doing with my bank account...). Peridon (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(A backfire was originally a backburn used as a firebreak. Usage in reference to cars came later.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the article, and looked through Google News for the past month, I'm not sure that this isn't a hoax. I would recommend a wait-and-see attitude, however: sources will either become apparent--or their lack will--in relatively short order. Jclemens (talk) 22:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a hoax, but nor has it been established as notable. However, the publisher of the video puts no specific focus on the character itself. If notability is established at some point, it would be more appropriate to focus on the actual product, which is the children's DVD.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whilst an entertaining meme has developed surrounding a fictional toy portrayed in a religious children's DVD, it is not notable (and nor has any official spelling of the character's name ever been provided). Some former JWs want to keep the article based on a subjective feeling that its creepiness is 'important' to the former member movement; whilst that may be a valid argument in certain venues, such as forums, that is not the purpose of Wikipedia, because it conflicts with Wikipedia's requirements for notability and reliable sources, and that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. The actual subject of the video is for children to be obedient, and the actual toy is merely a plot device in the film to further the actual subject. As odd as it may seem to choose a plastic 'magical' toy to teach such a lesson, the toy itself is actually ancillary to the plot. There are already various Wikipedia articles in which to indicate JWs' general beliefs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (probably edit down). If something's becoming a popular meme, people are likely to search for it, so it makes sense to keep a small amount of info even if it's not independently notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Detail about Sparlock would be out of scope for the general WTS article. Redirect to Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs. Insufficient notability to merge.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point in redirecting if it's not mentioned in the article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. The basis for having a redirect is if someone is likely to search for it, not solely whether it is explicitly mentioned in the target article. The beliefs article remains the most relevant redirect target.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This DVD is a publication of the WTS. If the decision is to merge, it'd probably be as a listing for the short film Become Jehovah's Friend: Listen, Obey, and Be Blessed in the article Jehovah's Witnesses publications. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 17:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. Only a very brief summary would be required, and no more than a sentence would be required to indicate that a meme began.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Jehovah's Witnesses publications as above. Tthaas (talk) 09:36, 10 July 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Jehovah's Witnesses publications, so long as it's only a couple of sentences. DoctorKubla (talk) 18:17, 12 July 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, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 19:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jehovah's Witness publications... seems like something someone might search for, but not much in the way of coverage to write an encyclopedic article. Probably makes the most sense to readers in the context of Jehovah's Witness stuff in general. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

in that sense it would be crufty then. Along with other Wikipedia no-nos: (Weasel Words, Coatrackery) Andy_Howard (talk) 03:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A couple of lines, suitable for the 'notability' of this topic, have already been added at the merge target, Jehovah's Witnesses publications.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:15, 26 July 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 DELETED, WP:CSD#A10. postdlf (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Star Plus (India)[edit]

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

This page is a copy of Star Plus and was created by a now blocked user, Itvitn. Coolcool₂₀₁₂ (talk to me) 19:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem controversial enough for AfD. Just G6 it.—S Marshall T/C 21:23, 20 July 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rochester Flying Club[edit]

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

long unreferenced article about private club with signicant claim to notability. searches just turn up business listings. Sadads (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some links that aren't business listings: It's been a sweet ride Taylorcraft Chummy (not sure if the referenced Rochester Flying Club is the same club or an older one under the same name)

At one point I had links to all the local flying clubs in the Greater Rochester International Airport page, but somebody removed them. It's kind of hard to counter the "unreferenced" claim if relevant links just get deleted. Ptomblin (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check through the edit history of the regional airport page, if you can find enough reasons cited by sources for the club to meet WP:Notability, then we can rescue the article. Supporters of keep, however, have burden of proof in finding materials beyond reasonable search, Sadads (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one of thousands of flying clubs which are normally not notable, no sign that this somehow rises above the bar of notablilty. MilborneOne (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks the coverage necessary to establish notability. Coverage noted from this source is local in nature. I can see no other coverage, especially non-local. Note that there is another Rochester Flying Club that shows up in searches that relates to a club operating out of Indiana so take care when searching. -- Whpq (talk) 18:09, 23 July 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 accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 727#1998. Redirected per the discussion conducted with the author, and kudos for the civil and productive discussion that led to a comfortable result. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American Airlines Flight 1340[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. No WP:PERSISTENCE ...William 17:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those really apply, as the crash occurred in 1998, not this morning. Also, I think any scheduled passenger flight that crashes resulting in loss of life or the aircraft is notable. True, we don't want people creating articles about a private Cessna that came down a bit too quickly resulting in a broken arm and a flat tyre, but this was a scheduled commercial passenger flight that crashed at a well known airport resulting in the loss of the aircraft. Osarius Talk 18:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er, yes, they do apply, regardless of when the event occured. The question is, though, was the aircraft just substantially damaged or was it a loss? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well fair enough then. The answer to that, found in the reference on the article (and now on the article itself after clarification), is that the aircraft was damaged beyond repair and was written off. Osarius Talk 18:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the airplane was a 20+ year old 727 that was soon to be retired anyway in all probability....William 18:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not that that really has any weight on how notable the article is, or a justification for the crash in the first place :P Osarius Talk 18:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most hull losses don't result in WP articles. There have been 83 DC-8 hull losses, there are 28 WP articles. WP:AIRCRASH only states that hull losses qualify for mention in aircraft articles.

As for standalone articles it read- "If an accident or incident meets the criteria for inclusion in an airport, airline or aircraft article above it may be notable enough for a stand-alone article if it also meets the criteria provided by the general notability guideline, a notability of events guideline and a guide on the use of news reports."...William 19:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who said that? (You forgot to sign properly!) Ah well okay. Unless there is somewhere I can merge the article into that looks like that's it for it then. I shall find something else to write about! :) Osarius Talk 19:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree, I'll put a mention in the airport, aircraft, and airline articles if there isn't one already, then make this article a redirect. Which means your work will be preserved, whereas a Delete result as a result of this discussion gets it wiped off WP totally. Please write back....William 19:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC), wh[reply]

Sounds good to me! Osarius Talk 19:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article will be redirected here[3]. I've already made an entry for it on the list....William 19:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And there, folks, is a model example of cooperation and collaboration. Good work! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:55, 20 July 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. postdlf (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Flight 9963[edit]

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

Non notable incident. Cargo plane crashes are very common....William 17:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 17:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable accident (WP:GNG, WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:AIRCRASH) and an article created by a block-evading sockpuppet of a community banned user. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A non-notable accident in which no one was killed and had no long lasting effects. Rorshacma (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable, as simple as that, but consider inclusion in a list, such as United Airlines#Incidents and accidents Petebutt (talk) 03:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but perhaps it should suffer the same fate as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Airlines_Flight_1340.Osarius Talk 08:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment There are a couple of important differences between this AFD and 1340 one. First- that incident was a cargo plane. Written off cargo plane accidents are far more common than written commercial plane accidents. Second and more important- You created the American Airlines Flight 1340 in good faith, the creator of United Airlines Flight 9963, did not. The creator of the article is one of the many WP:Sockpuppets of banned editor Ryan Kirkpatrick. While Ryan has been banned from WP for about two years, he has been constantly returning to Wikipedia as can be seen here[4]. Ryan creates articles about accidents(many of them obscure) even though he knows he isn't allowed to edit here anymore and that any edits he makes are to be deleted. I'm sorry to say this, but he's a nuisance. Ryan is creating work for WP administrators who have to be on the constant lookout for him and when they find his work then have to delete it. I hope that adequately explains the difference between the two discussions. Cheers!...William 13:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply I can see where you're coming from in terms of workload for sysops etc, but the original author of an article shouldn't really have any weight on whether it is deleted or not if other editors have contributed towards it. After all, Wikipedia is the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. As the article stands at the moment, there's no reason why it can't be redirected as per the page I stated earlier. Osarius Talk 21:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Using the 'delete before redirecting' option in the AfD closing script would solve both problems - having a redirect while removing the banned user's "credits" per WP:DENY. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No citations showing any evidence of WP:GNG; no evidence of enough importance to meet WP:AIRCRASH. --Closeapple (talk) 05:37, 26 July 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 08:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slice of SciFi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No consensus on original 2005 AfD, but since that time article still has not been able to gain any reliable, third-party references. A non-notable podcast that does not meet WP:WEB Breno ^talk 02:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vehemently disagree, so keep! Besides being a pioneer show, in its genre and in podcasting in general, it has also won broad recognition, as the article already states, e.g. by winning "Top Rated Podcast" in 2005 at the Podcast Awards, which has ca. 350,000 voters. Also, look at the list of people that have been guests on the show - everyone who is anything within the genre. dllu (talk) 06:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you prove any of that? Uncle G (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The awards are described in the links in the article, and past guests can be found on the show's own website, also linked to. dllu (talk) 11:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article copy states this podcast won "the prestigious Parsec Award for Best News Podcast in 2008", though following the reference it was actually "Best Speculative Fiction News Podcast in 2008". Sounds to me its a rather niche category that would not be encyclopedic. Breno ^talk 16:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science Fiction-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as program is broadcast on Sirius/XM as well a via podcast; has won multiple apparently notable awards. - Dravecky (talk) 22:39, 6 July 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, BusterD (talk) 02:11, 13 July 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, BusterD (talk) 17:07, 20 July 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ben 10: Omniverse episodes[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL No episodes have aired yet, first does not air until August and series does not start until September. There is no need for this page, all the information can be added to the main page, and this can be recreated after more episodes air. The only sources are youtube and formspring, neither are reliable. JDDJS (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL; we don't source to Formspring or a copyvio YouTube vid, and as I always argue a List of episodes article shouldn't be created until a season two begins. Nate • (chatter) 02:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The material is not sourced to a reliable source at this point. -- Whpq (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:TOOSOON, WP:RS. There are no reliable sources, and no episode's have aired. It's simply just too soon. TBran dl ey 05:47, 24 July 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Ghosts[edit]

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

Previous Prod with rationale "Book published through a Self-publishing firm, with no evidence of achieved notability." The Prod was removed by an IP without comment or addressing the issues, so I'm bringing the article to AfD on the same rationale as the Prod. AllyD (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As noted above, self-publishing garners no notability and I can find no evidence that any arm's-length third-party source of expert opinion has ever commented on this book. Ubelowme _U ^Me 17:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleter per comments above Sadads (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. I would normally recommend a redirect to Joel Dodd, the author, but at this point, it doesn't appear that the author is notable either although he isn't under AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have initiated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel Dodd for the article on the author. -- Whpq (talk) 18:34, 23 July 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4 Clowns[edit]

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

Long unreferenced and orphaned article about a film that compiles scenes from multiple older films. doesn't appear particularly notable, and none of the sources I am finding on Google appear more then mentions that it exists. Sadads (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article text ~~is a copyright violation because its~~ is plagiarism of the plot summary of the IMDB~~, which, although user-submitted, is covered in the IMDB's Terms of Use (see "Reviews, Comments, Communications, and Other Content" section).~~ Jason Quinn (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further reason to delete then, methinks, Sadads (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misread the ToU. It is still plagiarism though. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A stub, sure... but an article on a film that itself covers some of the very earliest of silent film comedey. While the nominated state had issues,[5] they were easily addressable (even the copyvio), and even a few minutes time showed the topic as improvable.[6] We would not expect that this pre-internet film 1970 film would have the same ongoing and persistant press and coverage of a recent blockbuster... and no, this article on a 1970 film will likely never be GA of even FA... but as an encyclopdia we do well to serve our readers by preserving our cinematic history. And while certainly the WP:GNG serves the project well, it is not the sole arbiter of what does or does not improve this encyclopdia for its readers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the improvement, I am not particularly familiar with film topics, and was not aware of those particular sources. The claims to notability that are now in the article may propel it into meeting GNG, though it was not apparent from any of the databases or other materials I saw in the initial search or the initial article. I am not completely convinced, but if multiple other users find that satisfying, the Deletion review will have served its purpose in provoking adequate information about the film to become captured on the wiki, Sadads (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I am speaking as an active senior Wikipedia editor and not as a co-ordinator of project film when I make my guideline and policy supported statement above. To reinterate: while the GNG is a wonderful tool, it is not the sole determinant for what may or may not be of worth to this encyclopedia and its readers... specially when considering films that predate the internet by decades. We might even consider that besides its historical import, or it re-airing comercially more than 5 years after initial release, that in its being the final feature film project of Robert Youngson (1917-1974) and by its being considered "one of compiler Youngson's very best efforts",[7] it is notable enough based upon those verifiable facts, even without SIGCOV for a 42-year-old film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really want to argue about this, but am afraid you are approaching this from a very narrow perspective, so thought I would highlight why I think that is the case:

You shouldn't be pulling the experience card. That is not at all an appropriate approach to AFD, remember Wikipedia:Equality in future conversations. Besides, I have 3 years on you, with many more edits, and am an admin, besides having taught many people how to interpret the community in Outreach events. Interpretation of our policies is widely varient, which someone with your experience should know: every editor on Wikipedia has wide and varied experience on solving content problems on the wiki.

You are arguing for general notability via field specific issues (for example, I interpret the screening of a film on TV as having no validity in a Notability conversation, my experience speaks quite to the opposite: have you seen the kinds of clearly non-notable crap that makes its way on American television? Those films may belong in context of the producer's or actor's articles, but as independent articles, there is no way. Most often these films are filler from the back of the archive used to capture ad revenue when they know they can't compete with other channels.). Also, you are pushing this conversation towards a meta discussions on the purpose of Wikipedia and its rules. In general, the community has agreed GNG is the one and only real policy that should influence which content maintains independent articles. The only reason to WP:Ignore all rules, would be if we reach a serious impass, which we are not at.

I really appreciate your experience and the quality of the content you produce, and hope the consensus from other editors will point to how GNG should be interpreted in regards to this article, Sadads (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you see as "narrow perpective" is my using the "wider perespective" of judging a topic notability through a wider and not a narrower perspective.

We're both admins and work different areas of the project, so no insult was intended. My experience and familiarity with film were offered to someone who admitted to being "not particularly familiar with film topics." Thank you for pulling out your own "experience card". And while you may have experience in topics other than film, it is still important that I stress for others that the GNG is not the only determinant of notability.

While certainly all the separate film articles of any director might be merged to those director's article if stubby, we do not do so if the target would be overburdened or if doing so requires the removal of encyclopdic information and limits a reader's understanding of a topic. If "crap" cannot be determined as somehow notable, then "crap" will not have an article.

Your contention that "the community has agreed GNG is the one and only real policy that should influence which content maintains independent articles" is not a precise statement. The GNG is a guideline not a policy, and for valid reasons. What the community HAS agreed to, as is refelcted at the top of each guideline, is that guidelines are not writ in stone, are to be used with common sense, and are open to the consideration of exceptions that improve that encyclopedia.

Toward common sense and exceptions, the SNGs were created to address those times when the GNG is not so certain but a topic might be considered worthy of note even in absence of SIGCOV. In looking through the other end of the lens... if the GNG "were" the "only" determinant, why have SNGs at all? The SNGs were created by the community to address those instances where exceptions to the GNG might be considered.

And worth sharing in case I am called a rabid inclusionist (its happened), is that I am always willing to opine a delete for film articles[8] if notability cannot be asserted and verified.

So the only actual "policy" involved here is WP:V... and a fact being cited to a reliable source for mandated verifiability purposes does not require that such source itself "must" be SIGCOV... oh it could be, and fine if it were... buit while related, notability and verifiabilty are not the same thing.

And by the by, WP:IAR is not to be used in case of "a serious impasse"... that's for dispute resolution. IAR is to be used to improve the project... and more often than not it is the using of it that can lead to an impasse and WP:DR.

...So my conviction toward notability is through consideration of community established SNGs: When looking at films that predate the internet by decades, and in the absence of SIGCOV, we ARE allowed to consider its historical import and the verifiabilty of it 1) re-airing comercially more than 5 years after initial release, 2) it being the final feature film project of notable director Robert Youngson, and 3) it being considered one of the director's very best efforts. We can determine this film notable enough based upon those verifiable facts, even without SIGCOV for a 42-year-old pre-internet less-than-blockbuster film.

You may rest assured that I will continue improving articles, and hope that by doing so I might influence newer editors in how to create something to serve the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above argument by Schmidt. This seems to be one of those movie articles that doesn't have the surplus of sources that others might (partially because it was released pre-Internet and wasn't a big mega film), but still meets notability guidelines in other ways. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the Maltin four-star mini-review, the Windsor Star piece on the initial release, and some of the other refs, the article meets our notability guidelines, now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:48, 23 July 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 (G3), blatant hoax. --MuZemike 14:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dariani Belle[edit]

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

Biography of a newcomer Brazilian actress. There's enough claims of notability to avoid speedy deletion, but most of the claims appear bogus. For example: #5 on VH1's list of 100 Greatest Women in Music? (That's Adele, by the way.)[9]. Time magazine's "one of the most influential people in Brazil"? Not according to the blank wordpress site that is used as the citation. Much of the article has been copied from the article on Skye Sweetnam. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the page is better to see, Sorry--Dattatreya 45 (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see how it got better--Dattatreya 45 (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't notice any improvement, other than the removal of the verifiably false claim about VH1, and the incorrect link to Skye Sweetnam's home page. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I arranged--Dattatreya 45 (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, the article no longer contains any blatant falsehoods. It still does not contain any legitimate claims of notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will give a tidy--Dattatreya 45 (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failure of WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. --IShadowed 17:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing the page,withdraw the notice, the page is arranged in accordance with the standards.--Dattatreya 45 (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
we analyze better, thank you, --Dattatreya 45 (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many sources added. Many are broken links. Others are to pages having nothing to do with this subject, or to hastily set up and content-free blog sites. Methinks I smells hoax. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 05:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Daria is a well-known cross-wiki sockpuppeteer. See this, please. José Luiz ^talk 13:28, 21 July 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bart Ramsey[edit]

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

A Jazz musician. Unable to find any reliable, independent references. Only refs I can find are from him or from an agent. I can find records and reviews of the records. However, the records have been released by Jumping Man Records, a company co-owned by Ramsey. Prod was contested for unknown reasons. Bgwhite (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bart Ramsey#Contested deletion seems to be the unknown reasons. Uncle G (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That was published before the PROD. Bgwhite (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - … which is irrelevant. The reasons given are the the reasons that the article's creator had for objecting to deletion of the article. Try thinking like a human being writing an article. Someone puts a notice on the article, saying that you can object. So you object, giving reasons. Someone puts up another notice, that says that you can object, and that you can remove the notice if you do. You think "Don't be stupid. I've already told you my reasons.". And you remove the notice. In the meanwhile, your user talk page is filling up with multiple repeated notices that you can only conclude are being written by robots, and not human beings. You chalk it up to some stupid computer programming on the part of whoever designed the Wikipedia WWW site, and ignore it. Uncle G (talk) 18:49, 5 July 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added a few references from newspapers, magazines and a book. I don't have access to Highbeam or JSTOR, so I'm sure somebody else could find better refs. 64.40.54.4 (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I admit this is not a strong keep, but the sources are decent, though not great. In addition, the musician has a decent web presence, however, trying to gleam any citiable information from that is difficult given that searching for his name (not surprisingly) mostly brings up lists of where he is/has played + cds - not the most informative hits, but the volume is suggestive of some decent importance in his music scene. Least that's my take on it. Jztinfinity (talk) 23:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Apparently this process didn't appear on the log after relisting. Since we do have participation and since the relisting period still has several days to go, I've added to the July 13 log in the proper time sequence. BusterD (talk) 20:45, 17 July 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, BusterD (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Not a model article by any means, but the new citations push it onto the keep pile for me.BennyHillbilly (talk) 05:56, 23 July 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 Blind Al. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deuce the Devil Dog[edit]

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

Stub fictional character article that does not meet WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:N, and is WP:IINFO CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 05:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Blind Al, doesn't need much but a sentence or so. Darryl from Mars (talk) 06:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 13 July 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, BusterD (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Blind Al. An extremely minor fictional chracter that doesn't pass the GNG by a long stretch. The relevent info here is already in the Blind Ali article, so a simple redirect would be enough to suffice. Rorshacma (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Blind Al as suggested above. Cavarrone (talk) 10:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect in the interest of building a consensus. Article does not meet the WP:GNG but redirecting seems like a decent compromise to outright deletion. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:45, 25 July 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. After a month on AfD, this article about a living person still references no reliable sources about them. WP:V and WP:BLP therefore mandate the article's deletion. Sandstein 08:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Radevski[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:BIO. possible WP:AUTOBIO. created by a single purpose editor (possibly himself). there is no widespread recognition of this person in coverage. coverage merely confirms he is a director google news and trove. LibStar (talk) 01:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 04:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 04:18, 28 June 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, BusterD (talk) 03:42, 5 July 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, KTC (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep "Possibly a WP:AUTOBIO" does not mean it is one... and while COI is always a concern, it is not a strong deletion rationale for notable topics (see Jimmy Wales), and even if it were a COI (not established)... the author has not touched the article for nearly two years. The 2009 nominator returning it again to AFD is fine so that we can revisit the issues of November 2009 and see how this person's career may have progressed in the interim. However, being "just a director" can be notable enough if works or director are covered reliable soucres. We do not expect nor demand that a person notable to Australia be notable world-wide, nor do we demand that their career grows, nor that they stay in the news if they had enough coverage in the past. Conversely, having enough coverage in reliable sources IS a valid reason to "weak keep"... but yes, the article needs work. Okay. Being improvable, even if not done, does not automaticaly equate to deletion. So... what do we have that could assist in improvements some time in the future? Sidney Morning Herald speaks toward the filmmaker or his works in a more-than-trivial fashion. So does The Age and The New York Sun The filmmaker being an editor at Trove means little, as we do not delete Roger Ebert simply because he authors works in places other than Wikipedia. The University of Notre Dame Australia offers some background.[10] Culture Unplugged offers more.[11] His films have screened internationally. Anyone check for coverage of them? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:06, 17 July 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, BusterD (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment, Sorry for the third relist, and I'd normally not do it, but between the two AfDs we have a grand total of three editors participating. I'm hoping the additional time might draw more eyes. BusterD (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP: GNG as it is unsourced. Electric Catfish 18:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you meant that it fails WP:V? WP:N says about five times that notability is a function of the topic, not the article. For example WP:NRVE states, "The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable." Unscintillating (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both delete !votes have IMO been shown to have no weight, but I suggest that the closer consider WP:V and WP:OR in the closing. Both are reasons under our WP:Deletion policy to delete an article. Unscintillating (talk) 00:59, 24 July 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Barraclough[edit]

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which provide the in-depth coverage required by WP:GNG to evidence the notability of this author. No listings in Worldcat, one listing in Google Books, I can't disambiguate/find reference to the named awards. Maybe there's a nickname issue, dunno. Additional sources welcomed, as always. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 13 July 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, BusterD (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find significant coverage in any reliable sources J04n(talk page) 21:17, 26 July 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi[edit]

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

General notability not established. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_τω^Θεώ 13:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have searched his name online and he does not meet gng. Pass a Method talk 13:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [12] indicates the problem here - a de facto government exists which is not recognised by anyone on the basis that it would further destabiise Somalia. [13] notes that Somalia killed 50,000 civilians in Somaliland in destroying one city in 1988 alone. Wikipedia can not involve itself in international politics, but I suggest that this one non-notable person could stay without harming the project. There is, however, no doubt that the government exists and is functioning. Invoking IAR for once. Collect (talk) 14:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are quite a number of online references confirming his position as Speaker of the House of Representatives of Somaliland, which is easily a notable government position. Rather than overkill, I only added two references, one from Reuters and the other from AllAfrica. There are also countless sources using the Somali spelling of his name, Cabdiraxmaan Maxamed Cabdillaahi Cirro. First Light (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have searched for him and he does not seem to meet notability requirements.George Custer's Sabre (talk) 12:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are now references from Reuters, Taylor & Francis, IRIN Africa (UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs), and AllAfrica which source his role as a notable politician (Speaker of the House of Representatives in Somaliland). A quick Google search also finds many thousands of local sources using the english version of his name[14] and thousands more using the Somali spelling.[15] This article and its subject easily pass the notability guideline for politicians: WP:POLITICIAN. First Light (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But that government is not recognized by any other - such, for rhetorical purposes, that my notability would be greater if I declared myself president-in-exile of the Confederate States of America while living in Massachusetts, USA and had a following of die-hard Southerners supporting me (or, just as well, declared myself Caliph, Emir Al Muminin, and Guardian of the Two Holy Cities as a Christian). The only way to keep this is as Collect would (nice to meet you in some non-dispute resolution process for once, and I generally agree with you there) is to invoke IAR, as the representative of a non-existent (as far as recognition goes) government. One can then charge Reuters with a semantic problem by acknowledging the unrecognized Somaliland government (as Reuters is not a sovereign nation), much as the news media always call former Governors of US States "Gov.", as if there were more than one governor at a time. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_τω^Θεώ 09:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is, however, a de facto government - and Wikipedia has had articles on de facto governments in the past, thus it would not be entirely new terriroty here to allow this one. It is, moreover, decidedly not fictitious, and has coverage in reliable sources as a government. Collect (talk) 11:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JohnChrysostom, I don't see thousands of articles in regional newspapers, and several articles in international and notable mainstream newspapers, about your presidency and your country. Clearly, Somaliland is notable, and this person and his position in their government is notable, according to sources and WP:POLITICIAN (all three criteria there, in fact, when only one is required). First Light (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What we have here is a subject who would clearly meet WP:POLITICIAN if Somaliland were an internationally recognized country. Instead, Somaliland's status as regards international recognition seems to be much the same as that of the Confederate States of America between 1861 and 1865 - diplomatically unrecognised but widely accepted internationally as the de facto government of most of the territory it claims. However, I can't ever remember seeing a claim that Confederate congressmen fail WP:POLITICIAN, and wouldn't expect it to succeed if made - this case should be analogous. I would also make one other point more related to WP:GNG - we often have transcription problems with Somali names, and this seems to be one of those cases. 'Abdirahman Mohamed Abdullahi' seems to be a relatively uncommon transcription of the subject's name - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL and Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL both seem to work better (as do some missing out one of the subject's last two names and/or including his nickname (or title?) Irro, though these also seem to pick up references to other individuals). Putting these all together pick up quite a few apparently reliable references from the past six or eight years. PWilkinson (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing exists in the article to establish notability. Unscintillating (talk) 01:17, 24 July 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sexy Mama, Wild Rose (song)[edit]

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

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

Song article with no claims of notability. Fails WP:NSONG. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability -- mowglee 10:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Unreferenced and no claims of notability asserted. Electric Catfish 15:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Introducing (Bombay Rockers album) no reason to keep the article but I feel a redirect should be created. Ducknish (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than one "Sexy Mama" songs. 1 and possibly more. But two enough for not redirecting. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 16:09, 26 July 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Rose (song)[edit]

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

Song article with no claims of notability. Fails WP:NSONG. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability -- mowglee 10:10, 23 July 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. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Control (Bombay Rockers song)[edit]

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

Song article with no claims of notability. Fails WP:NSONG. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect with Bombay Rockers per WP:PRESERVE. There doesn't seem to be any reason to get rid of the information on the page, but it certainly doesn't seem notable enough with any references to have its own article. --Adrian Dakota (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability -- mowglee 10:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A failure of notability is a reason to "get rid of the information on the page". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:51, 28 July 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 userification is desired ping me. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blokes[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 06:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A film that apparently ~~didn't make a splash upon its 2012 release~~ hasn't been released yet.[16] According to IMDb, the director[17] and stars[18][19][20][21] have no other credits, which probably accounts for the lack of notice. Not to be confused with the 2010 Chilean short film.[22] Clarityfiend (talk) 06:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per being TOOSOON. To quote from the article "Blokes is an upcoming Australian film". Okay. The article's sole source Cairns Post, states "Blokes movie filming in Far North" and this was from December 2009. I did find another from December 2009 in North Queensland Register again sharing that it was filming at that time: "NQ blokes star in real Aussie film". And his sponser "Just4Wd", shared some background and we learm that the the fimmaker began writing his script in 2007,[23] but they are not exactly independent. The Townsville Bulletin shares that by January 2010 the film was completed.[24] The film's official website gives no clue to what happened to it over the last three years, but by the trailer it does appear something was shot. And though I am willing to believe IMDB that the thing is still in post-production and something may be released later this year... but pretty much, the lack of coverage shoots this one down. If the author wishes it back for continued work as user's draft, I say let him have it. It is far too premature for article space. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate/Userfy as per previous comment. With this sort of film there's no guarantee when it will be released or if it will be released at all, or that it will be notable if it eventually creeps out on DVD, download, or TV. And it's not currently meeting WP:NFILM. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine with incubation. As the film has a supposed 2012 release date, the article could benefit from collaborative editing away from mainspace. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 12 July 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Nick-D (talk) 02:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No definite release date; WP is not a newspaper and not a fortune cookie. When it has been released AND if it has established some notability, then it can have an article. David_FLXD (Talk) ^{Review me} 17:58, 27 July 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul_Atherton[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Self-promotion, not encyclopaedic. Peterforever2 (talk) 10:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the edits by the user User:Amanda Paul. Clearly the individual concerned. Very few references elsewhere to this individual verifiably not written by him. Peterforever2 (talk) 10:51, 12 July 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 July 12. Snotbot t • c » 11:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See no evidence of notability Seasider91 (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete According to this, Paul Atherton is Amanda Paul the article's creator. The question is whether the subject is notable. While IMDB does give good references to his movies and media productions, the google search result's here doesn't seem to indicate that he's very notable. But only more submissions by contributors can resolve the issue. --Artene50 (talk) 00:08, 13 July 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. IMDB does not indicate notability because it allows anyone who's acted in a movie or TV show to be listed, regardless of their importance. Anyone can create their own IMBD resume. Each footnote may violate WP:COI because they seem to link to works made by Paul Atherton. --Apollo1758 ^(talk) 15:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Clearly promotional in intent, with green links all the way into the lead. If this is kept, those must be either removed or shifted to an appropriate place at the end of the piece. No opinion as to notability. Carrite (talk) 18:19, 25 July 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 The String Cheese Incident. Content can be merged from history (with attribution) if and as desired. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Travis[edit]

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

The band the The String Cheese Incident is notable. However reliable sources to prove to the extent that this person meets WP:GNG are not widely available. Even the BBC page is a direct copy of our article.[25]. Edinburgh Wanderer 15:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Brambleberry of RiverClan ^{Mew ♠ Tail} 16:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no basis for a standalone article on this band member, redirect to The String Cheese Incident (an editorial action that could have been done without an AFD). postdlf (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If i believed that was the best course of action, but i didn't and i don't. There are other notable Michael Travis. A disam with a link to the band maybe but a redirect possibly not.Edinburgh Wanderer 21:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 12 July 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to The String Cheese Incident. --→gab 24dot grab← 17:28, 27 July 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tere Bina (Khushi song)[edit]

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

Hindi song article claiming no notability. Fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. (Many more "Tere Bina"s are better than this. Actually can't even recall this song.) §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 16:10, 26 July 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Arvesen[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 21:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is two sentences and documents a non-notable actress with no references. It was larger and full of a lot of unsourced information (see here), but now is only an intro. The overall article fails WP:GNG. Shark96z (talk · contribs) 19:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the article has been expanded since the original nomination, however the info listed still doesn't seem relevant and a large amount of it is either unsourced or its source is unclear... Shark96z (talk · contribs) 05:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete She probably fails WP:NACTOR but I notice that a paragraph was removed from her wikipedia article between 2009 here and today. --Artene50 (talk) 00:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. I think Actress Nina Arvesen talent and achievements are enough to keep this article...Here is a list of newspaper references related to actress nina arvesen LINK http://www.genealogybank.com/gbnk/newspapers/?lname=nina&fname=arvesen&kwinc=&kwexc=&formDate=&processingtime=&group= "I personally believe the Wikipedia Article regarding Actress Nina Arvesen should stay on Wikipedia... I feel like everyone should keep an open mind ! Zzspeed (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC) 00:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability's not a problem, as she seems to meet the WP:GNG: there's what appears to be a copy of an article from Télé Star here: http://santabarbara-online.com/articleNArvesen.htm , which I think qualifies as a reliable source. Google Books also shows her to be the subject of a pictorial feature in the May 1990 Orange Coast Magazine. Google News Archives has an article about her in the September 19, 1988 edition of the Toronto Star, and also in the May 7, 1990 editon of the same paper. More digging in the Google News archives reveals numerous other articles, all with her as their main subject. Combine that coverage with recurring roles in well-known soaps, which meets one of the criteria in WP:NACTOR, and I think the case is clear for keeping the article. The article itself needs a lot of improvement, though. -- The Anome (talk) 11:03, 15 July 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This person meets WP:BASIC per [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per The Anome. Inks.LWC (talk) 19:16, 23 July 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. postdlf (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WinClon[edit]

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

Non-notable software. Fails WP:GNG. A Google News search and Google News Archive search produces no significant coverage from reliable and independent sources for "WinClon" and a Google News search and Google News Archive search produces no significant coverage from reliable and independent sources for "Saumsung Recovery Solution". OlYeller21^Talktome 12:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable software product. Breno ^talk 14:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It does not appear to be notable as per WP:GNG. §everal⇒|Times 19:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources, WP:MILL issue... Effectively this article is hopeless — vendor-supplied custom "solution" does not have a snowball's chance in hell. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but redirect to List of disk cloning software per WP:NORESCUE. --→gab 24dot grab← 17:24, 27 July 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. Jenks24 (talk) 12:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tryon Coterie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable single chapter college club. Other than WP:SELFPUB, completely unreferenced. No reliable sources, as required by WP:GNG; Fails WP:ORG. Absolutely no legitimate claim of notability. Having some notable former members is not sufficient grounds for inclusion.GrapedApe (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources are added. Depending on the type and content of reliable sources, the article still might be better being merged to Baylor University instead of kept as a separate article. ElKevbo (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that BDF 1967a harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBDF1967a (help) is one of the sources that was alluded to in the prior discussion. It doesn't provide much information that is specific to this individual subject. Uncle G (talk) 14:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Baylor Clubs Face Discipline". The Bonham Daily Favorite. 1967-11-07. p. 8.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only local notability - now simply a chapter of a larger fraternal organization that does not warrant an article of its own. dangerous panda 19:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Google, Google Books and Google Scholar searches turned up no evidence of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Fails all notability requirements. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:43, 23 July 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 as nomination withdrawn. (Non-admin closure) §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Directorate of Matriculation Schools, Tamil Nadu[edit]

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

Equitable syllabus is enforced in Tamil Nadu. BabuOnWiki (talk) 12:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll clarify what the nominator is suggesting and then provide my rationale: Tamil Nadu is now on this back and forth over Samacheer Kalvi, the goal of which is to integrate all state run certification boards under one umbrella. I believe, currently Samacheer Kalvi is in implementation (but given the back and forth on education policy based on which party is in power, this is bound to change). However, irrespective of the current story, the fact that this was one of three state-run certification systems until last year, and that it's significantly covered in reliable sources (very few of which are actually included in the article, which is a stub) makes this more than notable enough to be covered here. —SpacemanSpiff 12:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if Samacheer kalvi is implemented, the article could serve for recording history that such a directorate existed. --Anbu121 (talk me) 16:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, We'll have the article. I'll try to expand the article by citing external references and present day's system. Let's close the discussion. --BabuOnWiki (talk) 04:27, 21 July 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, WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heterosexual Awareness Month[edit]

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

Non-notable Facebook campaign. The sole footnoted ref does not deal with the subject of the article. In-line refs (In the Media section) consist of a blog and a non-reliable web-based "news" source. The second source "employs" citizen journalists who are compensated by shared revenue from click-thru ads.

No GNews hits, no GHits other than social media, unable to find any reliable sources. GregJackP Boomer! 11:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable event Seasider91 (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP, WP:VANISPAM, lack of notability, possible hoax, etc. --BDD (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Laffo. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator - reliable sources haven't taken notice of this campaign, and until/unless any do, it fails our notability guidelines. 28bytes (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No RS coverage. Ebikeguy (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons above -- I also found no reliable sources in a brief search -- and also because of the strong potential that this is a vulgar hoax. Ubelowme _U ^Me 20:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources. Self-promoted social media campaign. No notable sources. 22:06 July 2012 (GMT+1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.139.92.126 (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
G3 speedy. No reason this should last a week, the hoax is blatant.—S Marshall T/C 21:28, 20 July 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dil Jale[edit]

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

The article of a Hindi song from some non-notable album claims no notability. Fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG too. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails Notability. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 16:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --→gab 24dot grab← 17:19, 27 July 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 OMG Girlz. Jenks24 (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where the Boys At[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to group's article, the song charted (77 on R&B chart) so it passes WP:NSONG but without other information and refs does not deserve its own article. GregJackP Boomer! 11:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to OMG Girlz. That's fairly standard practice for songs by notable groups that don't quite have enough for their own article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to OMG Girlz per the above; plausible search term and the song did chart, albeit barely. I found some coverage for the music video ([31][32]), but I'm unsure if there's enough significant coverage in there to warrant an individual article. Gongshow ^Talk 06:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to OMG Girlz as above... meets NSONG, but per Rorshacma, redirect. Theopolisme _TALK 05:45, 26 July 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Columbine conspiracy theories[edit]

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

When I stumbled upon this article, it relied heavily on self published sources. Now that they are removed, I see no reason why this article should stand on its own. I did a cursory search for some valid sources but cannot come up with anything except articles in the immediate aftermath. Perhaps some of this content can be merged into Columbine High School massacre. Perhaps better sources exist out there to expand and update it to reflect a true "conspiracy", but I don't see them now. CutOffTies (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems notable to me. passes WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep As per WP: GNG. AP and CBS coverage is considered reliable. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Curious, do you think this article should stand because there's sources that disprove one conspiracy? --CutOffTies (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge last paragraph as a possible footnote in the main article, but even that would be a stretch. It seems that there was some evidence that a cop shot one of the students, which was later disproven by an independent inquiry. The main person questioning the police account has accepted the new inquiries evidence. I don't see how this even gets close to being a conspiracy theory. AIRcorn (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete, per Aircorn. Nothing really justifies having this borderline OR article. Lugnuts (talk) 07:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete, per Aircorn and Lugnuts. Unreferenced and unproven fringe theory. - DonCalo (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MAD seems to suggest that merging and deleting is not a good idea due to attribution issues. If a merge of any information is done a redirect should probably be created instead of deleting the article. Note that delete is my first preference anyway as I don't really see the value of adding this information to the main article. AIRcorn (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. - DonCalo (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This is short enough it can be contained within the main article. Stedrick (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is borderline OR, and there's not really anything here worth merging. An outright delete would be fine. Rorshacma (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are tenuous at best, original research at worst. I would say merge, but I really don't see anything here that is even worth merging. Trusilver 06:50, 20 July 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, Sandstein 09:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Two users who lazily looked at the existence of a couple reliable sources should not have prolonged reaching a conclusion, especially with the existence of six solid arguments. --CutOffTies (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not necessary. --BDD (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself. The crux of this discussion is whether or not there's enough to justify having a separate article about a conspiracy. Two users gave responses that there's reliable sources/notability in the article. That is a lazy response to the AFD. If pointing that out is uncivil, fine I'm guilty. --CutOffTies (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might just be a case of Sandstein being uncertain if it should be merged or deleted. No real rush in any case. AIRcorn (talk) 05:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I didn't think about that. --CutOffTies (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete not merge per nom. --→gab 24dot grab← 17:18, 27 July 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/redirect. I've done the redirect. Any interested party may pull any content worth merging from the page history. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of device tracking software[edit]

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

WP:RS; WP:NOT. The article was both created (17 May 2010) and expanded so as to promote one software company’s product (Prey) over its competitors’. See, e.g., Table, cols. 1, 3, 4, 8. The company is privately held and its headquarters are located outside the jurisdiction of any Anglo-American or European court. The product could be the best of the eleven rated or it could be a significant security risk. — Dervorguilla (talk) 08:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly merge with Device tracking software. Proposer should explain why policies apply, not just throw abbreviations around: "When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy." (WP:AfD). But there's a shortage of notable entries: only 3 entries in the list are software that currently has a WP page, and a list of 3 items is a bit short. The entry Device tracking software is also stubby, but it's a legitimate topic. Who created the page does not affect its notability. There's a lack of reliable sources at present but some of the products are widely reviewed, so finding sources should not be a problem. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am the CEO of one the companies on this list and I agree that the article is promotional. I would hate to see every conceivable product category filling up wikipedia like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.213.46 (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Compare Prey, http://preyproject.com/index.php (“The name and logo for Prey are registered trademarks of Fork Ltd.”), with USPTO, Trademark Elec. Search Sys., http://tess2.uspto.gov/index.html (no record for word mark “Prey,” owner “Fork Ltd.”). Cf. Fox-Stanley Photo Prods. v. Otaguro (D. Mass 1972) (holding that where corporation did not own a valid registered trademark, corporation’s representing to public that it did own a registered trademark was illegal use). — Dervorguilla (talk) 05:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Procedural Keep~~ – per WP:DEL-REASON; the nomination is vague in referring to entire guideline and policy pages (WP:RS, WP:NOT) to justify deletion, and the article has no promotional tone as of the time of this post. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responsive to Northamerica1000, Procedural Keep:

WP:NOT -> WP:NOTADVERTISING

Advertising. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources ….

WP:RS -> WP:SELFSOURCE#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves

Self-published … sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, … so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; …; [and] the article is not based primarily on such sources.

14 references: all are self-published; most are wholly self-serving.

EXO5 / Enterprise Laptop Tracking & Security; GadgetTrak / Laptop theft recovery software, stolen laptops, data protection, theft recovery software for laptops; GadgetTrak Blog / GadgetTrak Recovers Stolen Laptops & Unveils Identity Theft Ring; Hidden / Mac Theft Protection Software; LaptopSentry / Protecting your computer, Safeguarding your data; Laptop Security Software Solution / Laptop Tracking Software, Antivirus, Encryption, Firewall - Protegent360; LockItTight / Locate, track & monitor computers & phones online; Recovery Stories / The Absolute Software Blog; MyLaptopGPS.com / Global Laptop Tracking; Brigadoon Software / PC PhoneHome theft location & recovery software stops computer theft; Prey / Open source anti-theft solution for your laptop, phone & tablet; Prey / Recoveries; Orbicule; Orbicule / Undercover - Mac - Recovery stories.

— Dervorguilla (talk) 06:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for clarifying your rationale. Struck my procedural keep !vote above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with sourcing should be fixed by editing not deletion, if better sources exist. For LoJack you could use[33][34][35][36][37]. Here's a review of LockItTight[38]. Here's a comparison of laptop tracking software.[39] --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:34, 20 July 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, Sandstein 09:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added some more third-party refs. It should not be deleted, though merge remains a strong possibility. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Device tracking software. Topic is presumed notable. Material and organization needs to be improved. --Kvng (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixd 2 lks. --Dervorguilla (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The factual accuracy of the “For desktop/laptop PCs” section is disputed.

E.g., compare

Product:  PC Phone Home[15]
 Documented recoveries:  No

Product:  Hidden[5]
 Documented recoveries:  No

with

PC PhoneHome Testimonials, Brigadoon Security Group (2012)

“What people are saying about PC PhoneHome™ …”

About Hidden, Hiddenapp.com (2011)

“Hidden[™] in the Press: BBC News; Yahoo News; New York Times; …”

— Dervorguilla (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. One of the worst "live" examples I've ever seen in Wikipedia. I wouldn't oppose an edited merge to Device tracking software. --→gab 24dot grab← 17:14, 27 July 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. There is clearly not a consensus to delete this article outright. Discussion of merging it back can continue at the appropriate talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques Derrida on deconstruction[edit]

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

"Jacques Derrida on deconstruction" is not a suitable subject for an article, for the same reason that "Sigmund Freud on psychoanalysis" would not be a suitable subject for an article. The subject of this article appears, essentially, to be Deconstruction, and we already have an article on that. Delete or merge to "Deconstruction". Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: "Sigmund Freud on psychoanalysis" would not be a suitable subject for an article? Oh please. There are a good dozen separate articles on individual theories created by Freud: Freud's seduction theory, Oedipus complex, Electra complex, Transference, Unconscious mind, Sublimation, Polymorphously perverse, anal stage, oral stage, phallic stage, latency stage, genital stage, Id, ego and superego, defense mechanisms, Psychological repression, Denial, Displacement (psychology), Libido, Death drive, Pleasure principle, Neurotic, Reaction formation, there are several stand alone articles on Freud's publications, and more. Hey, Derrida is even mentioned in the main Sigmund Freud article! He's that notable. I think the problem here is that you do not recognize Derrida's stature in the literary and arts spheres. He's a huge figure in 20th century philosophy and linguistics. He is as important in the field of literature as Freud is in psychology and psychiatry; required reading on the syllabus at any university. His theories certainly warrant a standalone article from his biography article. OttawaAC (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "Sigmund Freud on psychoanalysis" would be ridiculous as an article subject, and if someone created such an article, I'd nominate it for deletion promptly, just as I did for this one. We do not need an entire article about "Freud on psychoanalysis" or "Derrida on deconstruction" when we have articles ("Psychoanalysis") and ("Deconstruction") that can deal with the subject in a more encyclopedic and proper way. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 22:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: We need to sort out the article on "deconstruction" and the present article could be helping, unless some of you prefer "deconstruction" to stay a battlefield between the derridean approach and the non-derridean approach. "Deconstruction" is not "psychoanalysis". I think that the article subject of this deletion proposal was created for the purpose of lightening the Deconstruction article from the Derridean influence without taking away Derrida's merits on this subject.--Christophe Krief (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Deconstruction. It is not in doubt that Derrida is notable, but for the discussion here that is not relevant. The topic "Derrida on deconstruction" also appears to be notable, as is shown by a Google book and Google scholar search. However, as it is, our article Deconstruction is almost exclusively devoted (with reason) to Derrida on deconstruction. So at best this article would be a duplicate of Deconstruction, and we shouldn't have duplicate articles. This article is an expanded POV fork of Deconstruction, having copy-pasted much of the latter's text (Duplicator report). I have not looked at whether the additions are worth keeping, but in any case this should simply redirect back to where it came from. --Lambiam 23:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If your concerns are only about duplicate, why not delete the duplicate content from the deconstruction article? This would allow a better understanding of deconstruction on Wikipedia. With only one article we will not reach quality due to divergence of ideas, but I believe that with 2 articles we may do...--79.97.130.111 (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably because that would mean removing most content from Deconstruction. Gutting an existing article to justify the creation of a new article that is about the same basic subject is a bad idea. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Better 2 good articles than a poor one I say... Plus it would give an opportunity to develop Deconstruction without focussing only on Derrida. --Christophe Krief (talk) 00:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing most of the content of Deconstruction would not make it a good article. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would give a wider idea of Deconstruction... As for now it is mainly about Derrida's work. I agree that Deconstruction is mainly Derrida, but there are also other approaches that cannot really be expressed correctly without the article "Jacques Derrida On Deconstruction".--Christophe Krief (talk) 00:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Removing most of the content of an article would not give a wider idea of its subject, it would leave it uninformative. I see no reason why an article on Deconstruction cannot describe both Derrida's contributions and those of others, if they are worth mentioning. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First I am not talking of only removing content but also adding some. Second, look at the article on Deconstruction now, the edit wars and other conflicts between Derrideans and non-Derridean are creating a mess... My opinion is that the article currenlty proposed for deletion could solve the existing conflicts that wasted the article. It would also give to Derrida the share that he deserves on Deconstruction... But this is only my opinion...--Christophe Krief (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean: are you saying that there are Derridean and anti-Derridean editors at work, screwing up the article? I assure you I am neither, and I think you should not so easily divide editors in camps. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When reading the talk page of the article on "Deconstruction", I found that some would like to work toward a wider approach of Deconstruction rather than only the Derridean approach. However, if you consider the article, you will find that about 80% of the article content is about Derrida's work... I am not judging the content of the article presently nominated for deletion, but I think that it would be a good idea, that it would help for clarity, if Derridean Deconstruction was condensed within a section of the "Deconstruction" article while a full article is dedicated to his works on Deconstruction. --Christophe Krief (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"A wider approach" does not mean anti-Derridean. I agree with your "condensed within" section, but this present article cannot be dedicated to his "works on Deconstruction" since those are, at least to a great extent, works "in" deconstruction. "On" carries a different load. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse the simplicity of my vocabulary... I used the term anti-Derridean to define those who have expressed the need to lighten up the Deconstruction's article from Derrida's work and put forward other authors. I don't think that it would give a fair Wikipedia representation of Deconstruction if Derrida's work is condensed in one section of the main article on "Deconstruction" without a second article to expend on his researches. I think that Derrida deserves an article for his work in Deconstruction and another one for his views on Deconstruction. I agree that this type of arrangement could under-state the influence of Derrida for readers of the main article. We need to make sure that the introduction will give to Derrida what belongs to Derrida and that the main article is fairly drafted. However, I do not understand the will to delete a well elaborated article like this one. It accused of being Essay like... Can someone give me clue to support this assertion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christophe Krief (talk • contribs) 11:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article in its current state, no matter what the title is, is in a pretty atrocious state and does not conform to various guidelines including the Manual of Style. I passed my netbook around at a table full of Wikipedians, and everyone guffawed at the quote boxes. The article itself is not well-elaborated as much as it is bloated and argumentative--essay-like. If it is kept it needs to be seriously rewritten. Drmies (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok for the style issue... But the content gives a fair overview of Deconstruction... It is probably a student's work. It needs to be wikified, but it would be a waste to delete it. I am not feeling competent enough and that I have no time to work seriously on it, but I think that a tag for serious improvement would be more appropriate than deletion.--Christophe Krief (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My feelings here are mixed; I'm trying not to get distracted by my concerns with the content and genesis of the article, which is a copy and paste job of a version of Deconstruction that was already also fraught with difficulty (essay-like, improperly formatted, etc--that discussion from way back is on the talk page), and focus on this AfD.
I have a few issues here, and the first is the title of the article which is simply incorrect: I don't know what Ottawa was hoping to achieve copying this article to this title and I must quibble with the nominator as well. "Derrida on deconstruction" should cover what Derrida has to say on the topic of deconstruction, separated (as much as possible) from his contribution. In my opinion, only one section of the article, "The difficulty of definition and Derrida's "negative" descriptions", qualifies as proper content. We should try and reconstruct, if you will, for the purpose of encyclopedic writing, the discussion of a theory with the formation of that theory, as difficult as that is in this area. What's really odd, for instance, is that the article does not, as it should, discuss the issues Derrida had with De Man.
This article should not be about deconstruction, it should be about Derrida on deconstruction, which is probably a valid topic. The nominator said that "Freud on psychoanalysis" would be just as non-notable but that is clearly incorrect since Freud spent a lot of time criticizing his contemporaries: what Freud had to say on them (Havelock etc) would be a valid topic. Ottawa misreads Polisher's comment: the obvious importance of Oedipus complex is unrelated to "Freud on psychoanalysis": I think they misunderstand the grammar of "on".
A related point on misreading: Ottawa argues at length that Derrida is notable and influential in formulating and practicing deconstruction, which no one in their right mind could deny, but it has little to do with the present discussion. If one proposes the sentence "Derrida on deconstruction", one must propose that "deconstruction" points to an entity (non-physical or otherwise, but separate from Derrida) that Derrida could have an opinion on--or a pronouncement, an evaluation, a critique--and thus one must consider that the topic of this article cannot be deconstruction (ergo, the copy and paste job was incorrect). What the article should discuss is what Derrida had to say on deconstruction as a theory, as a fad, as an academic discipline, about a reading practice, about a practice co-opted and adapted and possibly misread and abused, etc.
I think that the proper topic of the article (not the one Ottawa intended) is notable for encyclopedic inclusion, but I also think that there is precious little content in the article that qualifies as pertaining to that topic. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even a big fan of Derrida. The original reason for the split in the article from the main Deconstruction article was two-fold: 1. by moving a lengthy bit of prose on Derrida's theories, the main Deconstruction article would provide a more balanced overview of the topic as it is relevant today, giving a broad scope, and 2. give a beginning to an article on "Derrida on deconstruction". I agree with you, "Derrida on deconstruction" should be expanded with more info on his conflicts with his critics, his views on the way his theories evolved in other's works, and so on. Actually, all the pro-and anti-Derrida arguing happening on the Deconstruction Talk page, that could be redirected towards the Derrida on deconstruction article. Those folks can easily expand it by adding their contributions there. Problem solved.OttawaAC (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be quite clear about it: it would be possible to create an article specifically about Freud's version of psychoanalytic theory (as distinct from the psychoanalytic theories and contributions of other writers). That subject would also undoubtedly be notable. It would not, however, make a useful article for an encyclopedia not specifically devoted to psychoanalysis. For the purposes of a general purpose encyclopedia, Freud's psychoanalytic ideas can better be covered in Sigmund Freud and Psychoanalysis. It would only confuse matters to have a third article that was halfway between the two existing articles where the subject could be covered. The situation with "Jacques Derrida on deconstruction" is comparable. There's no need for an article that's somewhere halfway between Jacques Derrida and Deconstruction. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't agree. Even with the Freud example, I think it's a perfectly legitimate article proposal. Some "thinkers" are just standouts in their fields, they have huge stature, influence, they create entire intellectual movements (yes, they have critics in abundance too, but their influence is undeniable). I think too much detail on their careers is brought into their biography articles, for one thing; biographies should focus on the actual overview of their lives, then fork into another article to get into a long multi-section, nitty gritty analysis of their work (Freud on psychoanalysis for example. Jacques Derrida on deconstruction is another. ... Why not Frank Lloyd Wright on architecture? Or Albert Einstein on physics? Or Catherine of Siena on theology? Or Virginia Woolfe on literature?...) Wikipedia has 4 million articles, I think it's beyond a "generalist" encyclopedia at this point, whatever that means, I think it's more like the Encyclopedia of Everything, as long as topics can establish some notability, like Simpsons characters, etc.) Just my opinion!OttawaAC (talk) 02:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't agree with what? You said, "Actually, all the pro-and anti-Derrida arguing happening on the Deconstruction Talk page, that could be redirected towards the Derrida on deconstruction article. Those folks can easily expand it by adding their contributions there." That indicates to me that you don't understand what's going on and have not read my comments. I think you are confusing "pro- and anti-Derrida arguing" with arguing over the content of the article (and maybe Derrida's coverage in it?), but what is certainly clear to me from your last comments is that you don't understand "on". "Frank Lloyd Wright on architecture" means "what FLW said about architecture", not "FLW in architecture" or something like that. Problem is easily solved if this article explains what Derrida had to say about "deconstruction" as a topic. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? I meant, to repeat the examples I gave, "Frank Lloyd Wright on architecture" meaning "FLW's views on the field of architecture and his place in it", with the same scope applied to the other visionary intellectuals that I listed as examples. If you want to insist that I'm a dolt regardless of what I write, fine, but I ain't changing my vote. OttawaAC (talk) 20:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only to Mrs. Drmies, and her mother. If you (apparently) agree with my definition of "on" (and I think this is new), then you will have to agree that this present article should not contain the content that it does. As for your vote, I don't care--I agree with the "keep" part, and I think the rest of your commentary is not to the point and you would have been better off keeping it to yourself, but fortunately this is not a debate club and we're not here to score points. I just can't figure out, for the life of me, what got into you to create this article--to come up with this title and then copy and paste the content of a different article into it. Is that what they teach in grad schools these days? Drmies (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that one of the issues debated here is beyond the concept of Deconstruction. What are the limits of Wikipedia? How much information shall be provided on each subject? Shall the encyclopaedia limit its approach on each subject or shall it expand in a detailed demonstration. Shall the article Of Grammatology be a detailed "line by line" or "paragraph per paragraph" analyse of the work, or shall it stay a general overview as it is at the moment... A detailed analysis of the work, of course, should not be the result of one person's work but express published researches on the subject. I hope you will understand my point. --Christophe Krief (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's stick to the topic: this is already long enough. "...should not be the result of one person's work but express published researches on the subject"--that's how Wikipedia works. We do not publish primary research, so no, that article should never be an analysis of the work: that's not what encyclopedias do. Drmies (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a subject like Deconstruction it would be difficult to describe the subject without analysis...--Christophe Krief (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult, yes, but that's no reason to make an exception saying that a difficult article doesn't have to be neutral and encyclopedic. The problem with the deconstruction article is that there are basically three ways people would write it: (a) long, unexplained, verbatim quotes from Derrida; (b) an attempt to interpret and explain Derrida that would be largely based on the author's own research; or (c) a cursory, detached overview that goes into no detail, which would annoy people in the field by giving the implication that there is less to say about Deconstruction than about the average Pokemon. We have a mishmash of (a) and (b) right now. I personally think (c) is the only way that is actually an acceptable style for a Wikipedia article, but who can write it? An outsider who doesn't know the terminology? A self-hating deconstruction theorist?

Incidentally, returning to the topic, if that cursory version of Deconstruction existed, then the article under discussion -- Jacques Derrida on deconstruction -- would be an unnecessary fork. rspεεr (talk) 19:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Deconstruction. Rather than becoming a "battlefield" in which "derrideans" and "non-derrideans" viciously lay waste to one another, I think the focused comparison and contrast between these differing viewpoints of the same idea would be most readable in a single page. You have to remember that if more and more editors edit the two separate pages, there will likely be a divergence and decline in cohesiveness of purpose of these two articles (which really by their nature need to be compared/contrasted, I believe). Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a textbook. Zujua (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"You have to remember that if more and more editors edit the two separate pages, there will likely be a divergence and decline in cohesiveness of purpose of these two articles..." Wouldn't we then really enter the subject of Deconstruction?--Christophe Krief (talk) 10:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly keep per WP:GNG and WP:RS. This is an extremely-well sourced article. The nomination is a mix of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:FORK, the latter argument being incomplete. Bearian (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDONTLIKEIT has nothing to do with it. I didn't say anything about liking or not liking Derrida and deconstruction. Rather, I don't think that the article is encyclopedic; Lambiam states the case against it well. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:09, 17 July 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, Sandstein 09:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's entirely proper to have an article on an important philosopher's view of an important philosophical topic, assuming there is sufficient material to write about. Should Political philosophy of Immanuel Kant be merged into Political philosophy? The main Deconstruction article is very long, and this article could stand just as a break-out from that article; some reorganisation of content may be a good idea, but that's no reason for an AfD. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the difference between this and your example is that Political philosophy is a much broader topic that Deconstruction. As others have said previously, the article on deconstruction is based almost entirely on the work of Derrida. As they stand now, the two articles are largely carbon copies of each other. Zujua (talk) 10:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, suggesting re-title to 'Derridean deconstruction'. --→gab 24dot grab← 17:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you want the article to be kept, you need to offer some rationale. I oppose a rename to "Derridean deconstruction"; it implies that there is some other kind that could be opposed to the "Derridean" one. WP:NOR. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 23:29, 27 July 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forever Road[edit]

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

Lack of notoriety, inadequate sources & neutrality 123ford (talk) 09:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Besides social networking sites (YouTube, ReverbNation, Facebook, Twitter, etc), I was able to find coverage in local newspapers; I need to see a bit more to be convinced that the group meets WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 22:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND and WP:CREATIVE. --→gab 24dot grab← 17:00, 27 July 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. Jenks24 (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Bae[edit]

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

Not sure if this article is of a noteworthy person or not. I PROD'd it, and it was declined, by the person the article is about. References have been improved since then, however, I only see one article about the person herself, the rest are links to places she performed at. I'm leaning toward a moderately strong delete, but I could see an argument for keep as well, so I figured I'd list it here for consensus to be formed. Fbifriday (talk) 07:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep She should pass wp musician. Besides, she is not mentioned in only one ciation. There are a few others in foreign languages that mention her. She's going to be featured in a new music album, so yeah. It mind kind of suffice. --Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BASIC. Significant coverage here and here provided the sources are regarded as reliable. VQuakr (talk) 08:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per VQuakr. Cavarrone (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Apm44 Note: The page is now in accordance with Wikipedia referencing rules. —Preceding undated comment added 10:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the BBC News video from the article plus the links provided above by VQuakr. Gongshow ^Talk 00:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious Keep - Honored speaker for a UN meeting which its own media states her fame? She's not a 'nobody'. A simple google search turns up enough to vouch for it, even before this article was nominated, just the UN article confirming more then our notability guidelines is enough for a keep. I don't know if Jenny Bae put up her COI (editor is subject), but the article should not be deleted. Probably just peer-reviewed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that Bae appears notable, but not that making a speech at the UN by itself confers notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was referring that the UN attested to her notability and fame. Though I would make a case that most UN speakers would be notable if not for every other reason why Bae is notable already. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:56, 27 July 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. Jenks24 (talk) 12:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robin S. Rosenberg[edit]

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

Delete. Blatant self-promotion by the author and her husband, S. Kosslyn, who created the page. Claims are unsourced. Authorship alone does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Dr.Who (talk) 07:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not adept at researching citations but my G Scholar search to see if her work has been cited yields poor results (I think). She's sure to be in the news because of the Batman shooting, and I suspect that's why Dr. Who happened across this almost two-year old article. If one can establish that she is an expert in the field of superhero psychology, I suppose you've got a claim for WP:AUTHOR, but the popular press has not been beating down her door to interview her, to date. Now that may change, perhaps. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotion by subject and/or spouse. Fails WP:AUTHOR and Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and fails on the G Scholar search. The article and Amazon show that the subject edited the popular culture books, did not actually write them except for the self-published one. MMMMMMMM (talk) 07:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant WP:ADVERT. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BOOK. Qworty (talk) 09:35, 24 July 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Jeffery[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 21:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Middle ranking businessman. Nothing special about him, nothing notable. All the references do is show that he worked for these companies, not that he did anything out-of-the-ordinary or spectacular to gain him notability. Biker Biker (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak weak keep Not a high profile individual but he's CEO of a Vodafone branch Could he be a future company CEO or is this WP:CB territory? Its hard to say. But the key question is whether his current position gives him a bit more notability in the businessworld? Maybe it does. I can't say. --Artene50 (talk) 23:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 13 July 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, KTC (talk) 06:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. The idea that he "could be a future company CEO" violates the no crystal balling policy. Dr.Who (talk) 07:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:ANYBIO. Person is not known outside business community, so kinda WP:ONEEVENT. --→gab 24dot grab← 16:57, 27 July 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 City Beach, Western Australia. Deleted before redirecting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

City Beach Residential College[edit]

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

The article does not establish notability of the subject. Fails WP:GNG. Dolphin (t) 06:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Dolphin (t) 07:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews [40]. LibStar (talk) 07:17, 12 July 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, KTC (talk) 06:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORG. Dr.Who (talk) 07:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to locality City Beach, Western Australia per WP:WPSCH/AG#N until sufficient notability is established to warrant a dedicated article. Breno ^talk 10:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to City Beach, Western Australia for now; a final resting place will most likely be an improved Department of Education-related article, but that doesn't exist as yet. IMO the facility itself is not notable enough for its own article. Orderinchaos 11:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect 100% copyvio of two paragraphs from the external link. The rest fails WP:V without considering whether or not it is also a copyvio, and as per our WP:Deletion policy, a failure of WP:V is a reason for deletion. Obviously the school is notable, as per numerous discussions over the years on the notability of colleges and high schools. So there is no prejudice to creating a properly sourced article. Unscintillating (talk) 00:31, 24 July 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. The article has been deleted under CSD G5. (Non-admin closure) Anbu121 (talk me) 22:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bekaboo Navya[edit]

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

Theme song of a TV show. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG.
(Note: The creator seems to be promoting their article by adding it's wikilink to all article's where the show's name appears. 1, 2, 3, 4.) §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 05:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:GNG, WP:SONG, and creator's apparent self-promotion. Dr.Who (talk) 07:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSONG. I would have PROD this article. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 16:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indian TV articles are full of SPAs. The cleaning on the article was reverted thrice within 12 hrs or so by three different editors (possibly same person) along with removal of AfD template. The creator is blocked on Commons for a day for uploading many copyvio images. I doubt PROD would have worked. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 17:15, 20 July 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 as G3 - Hoax. Alexf^(talk) 15:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chakynese language[edit]

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

Declined PROD. I am not convinced that this language exists. Its ISO language code is not recognized by the infobox links, the article prose seems fishy, and I can find no references that do not stem from Wikipedia. There are other relevant articles, cats, and files:

Komye - currently with a PROD
Sutagana - deleted
Katetakana - deleted
Category:Chakynese language
Category:Chakynese writing system
File:Map of Chakynese.png
File:Komye Chinese Character.png
File:Shaki word Chakynese.png
File:Sutagana SU.png
File:Katetakana KA.png

File:Flag of Chaky.png

Stuff on commons:

User talk:Cris.real293 seems to have created all the content here and on Commons. Chris857 (talk) 03:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Chakynese language. After checking Google Scholar (no hits) and regular Google (a few hits, but almost all from Wikipedia) I'm suspicious that this is either a non-notable original coinage or an outright hoax. It might be a non-standard spelling or name of something that is real and notable under another name, but who's to say? (I've not checked the sub-articles.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this could be a hoax but an odd one. Nothing to Google under Chakingu or Chakynese; Chilean Chinese doesn't produce anything either. Perhaps it's OR, given the style of the article. It doesn't look as if sources can be found. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as being totally incomprehensible gobbledygook. --Lambiam 15:14, 20 July 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 Closing early as improper nomination. Redirects should be discussed for possible deletion at WP:Redirects for deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Pyo[edit]

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

unsourcedbiographyanduselesstemplate Wog65 (talk) 03:07, 20 July 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gaius Julius Severus (tribune)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Gaius Julius Severus (tribune) (2nd nomination)

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

This article about a minor Roman imperial military tribune does not meet the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines. He served in no political office, the article is mostly filled with details about his near relations, and he is only mentioned in one genealogical source. He is not the Gaius Julius Severus who was governor of Britain and Hadrian's general who put down the rebellion of Simon bar Kokhba, not is he the Gaius Julius Severus who was Archon and Priest of Augustus in Galatia. Oatley2112 (talk) 13:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the latter is Gaius Julius Severus (proconsul), and the former is Sextus Julius Severus. Uncle G (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILBIO; Military tribune does not appear to be that high up. Bearian (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, a Tribune commanded a Legion (3000 to 6000 men) (in rotation of command), roughly a Brigade in modern terms. Wouldn't a Brigadier be considered quite high up the ranks? Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - During the high empire, a Tribune was above a centurion, but below a legatus. It was the legates who commanded the legions, and determined when, where and with whom they should fight. For notability purposes, there mere supposed existence of a military tribune, who had no other career, either military or political, and who was involved in no conflicts that we are aware of while Tribune, is not sufficient to support the existence of an article devoted to him. Oatley2112 (talk) 22:21, 20 July 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, Gongshow ^Talk 00:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILBIO - insufficient rank (as discussed above); and insufficient notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Colleen McCullough (or however you spell her surname, The First Man in Rome author). Under the republic apparently military tributes were ten-a-penny. Buckshot06 (talk) 15:56, 21 July 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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

London Ethnic[edit]

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

I tried to rescue this page after seeing it had been proposed for deletion, but after throwing out loads of stuff - peacock terms (someone I've never heard of was described as "Incredibly handsome and internationally famous" and another "famous French model" had no Internet presence whatsoever) promotion, non-reliable sources affiliated with the subject, and failing to find even passing references to the supposedly verifiable articles in Vogue/Elle etc, cited on a Google search, not even a hit for title or subject - I am left to conclude that it fails notability on a number of counts. The only RS link that works and isn't affiliated to the site, the BBC interview, doesn't even mention London Ethnic. It has only been edited (apart from by me) by newly created users who have edited nothing beyond this page. A proposed deletion was removed by one of the single-purpose editors, who camouflaged the removal by adding puffery about the aforementioned handsome and famous nobody. I tried, but I do believe this is a clear delete. Mabalu (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If the Elle and Vogue articles ever existed, they don't any more. DoctorKubla (talk) 18:04, 12 July 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, Gongshow ^Talk 00:52, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reading between the lines, this is a shop with a website. So what? As far as I can tell, when the article talks about London Ethnic's designers, it means designers whose clothes they sell and nothing more; if it can be shown that these designers are actually part of London Ethnic, that would be a different matter. Emeraude (talk) 11:40, 23 July 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.