< 5 July	7 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 keep. with a refactoring to Debt theory of money. It can be moved there then built from ground up, if whomever takes the task up wishes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Debt-based monetary system[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was nominated for deletion in December 2007. While the result of that discussion was keep, this was premised on the article that actual references would be added and there'd be some evidence that this is anything but original research [1]. In the five years since then, this hasn't happened, probably because it is original research. It's not a known concept, it's not notable, it's OR. VolunteerMarek 01:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nom obviously. VolunteerMarek 01:20, 29 June 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 June 29. Snotbot t • c » 01:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the current article *is not* strictly that which went to AFD in 2007. That particular article is currently at Criticism of fractional reserve banking. The article under discussion was restarted as a topic at 11:21, 2 February 2012‎ by 122.162.74.201. -- KTC (talk) 04:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears this is a WP:POV take on the concept of a Money economy. I can't quite call it a POV fork, since that article doesn't exist, but Merriam Webster suggests that's the term for it. I'm not sure how fruitful it would be to possibly move this article there. Note that Criticism of fractional reserve banking says, "Critics of fractional reserve banking and the related fiat paper monetary system may use the term debt-based monetary system or credit-based monetary system to emphasize the role that credit plays in the current monetary system. These terms are not in general use..." This suggests WP:N concerns for this topic. If it remains, it should be retooled to describe the phrase, as one used to criticize money economies. --BDD (talk) 15:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"obnoxious template removed" — Preceding unsigned comment added by DBigXray (talk • contribs) 21:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Original text of template removed by DBigXray: Substantial text was removed from this article prior to or during AfD. This notice is added to prevent misrepresentation of the potential of the article under discussion, compromise of the relevance of contributions to the discussion, and complication of the discussion's conduct and closure. This is not an official WP notice Anarchangel (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh can you say the same thing without that obnoxious template?VolunteerMarek 22:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seemed like a good idea at the time. I do not think I will use it in the future. Anarchangel (talk) 08:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - actually, this smacks the system of Ancient Egyptian trade. Bearian (talk) 23:38, 2 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) 00:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The concept is not original. There is a significant school of thought that money developed from the concept of debt rather than from barter. Debt as a basis for monetary systems is therefore quite fundamental. I have expanded the article, providing a reference and more content. Warden (talk) 10:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—I skimmed the book cited in this article, and read the section that seems relevant (the article doesn't help here, as the citation is to a full section in the book, instead of a particular page). I come away with the belief that this article is, indeed, WP:OR , and even beyond that, it's a case of WP:SNTH. The book does suggest that coinage came about as a result of a debt/credit economy, but to link that idea to the naming and definition of a "monetary system" is further that the book goes (that I could find). The final sentence in the first paragraph of the article, seems to be making a link (synth) that is not articulated in the source material. I'm sure the "concept is not original" (per User:Warden, but at the same time, it's not supported by the source offered, and as we've yet to find further sources in 5 years, I think it's time we pull the plug on this article. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Im astonished that you can say that. As a rule, if ever you feel a source added by an ARS member doesnt support an article, you just need to read it more attentively. The Graeber source was added by the Colonel himself, easilly one of the top 10 most meticulous and scholary editors in all of Wikipedia. It absolutely supports the concept - one of the main themes of the book is that monetary systems are debt based, and have been since the very begining, apart from regions and periods where money was backed by bulion. If youre not interested enough in the book to read it closely, you can verify this by reading its many reviews. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, whenever I see "a source added by an ARS" member I... sigh really loudly. This is a gross over generalization on my part but in many of those cases the adding of the usually related but irrelevant source is just a desperate attempt to "rescue" yet another pointless piece of synth and or. So far I still think this needs to be deleted and I agree with Livitup. Graeber is about a different idea (feel free to start an article on it), not this one. I'm still looking at Innes source.VolunteerMarek 19:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually read the Graeber book (if you checked my editing history I added it as a reference to another article on 4th of July, several days before the Colonel added it) and it is indeed largely about the concept that both current and historical monetary systems are debt based. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I initially thought this was a POV fork in the making of money or some such, but I now believe this to be a valid article about an alternative theory of the origin of money. Whether the sourcing available is sufficient to sustain a piece is perhaps arguable, but I believe the general topic is encyclopedic. Perhaps needs a name change after close of the AfD, if kept, to something like Theory of the debt-based origin of money or some such. The "book" on money is that it originated as a store of value and a means of accounting in lieu of barter for transactions. The alternative argument here is that money also started in some instances as a mechanism for tallying debt. Carrite (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of sources do you have in mind to support the notability of "Theory of the debt-based origin of money"? Do these exist? VolunteerMarek 16:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Credit and State Theories of Money for Innes' papers with subsequent commentary and development. Warden (talk) 14:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still thinking about it but if the article, in its present state is renamed to "Credit Theory of Money" or something along those lines, that might work. The thing is, it might be just more "legit" to create such an article separately and move the text from here there. That way the histories of the two articles, which are about two different concepts, won't get mingled and mangled. Also, it will hopefully prevent some joker from "restoring previous stable version" - i.e. restoring the OR/SYNTH version from before this AfD.VolunteerMarek 19:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that today's FA is about a monetary topic. Perhaps inspection of the linked articles may be helpful. Warden (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Its true the concept doesnt have much currency among mainstream economists. (Although the Innes papers were highly regarded by Lord Keynes himself and have recently been populated by good professor Randy Wray.) But the concept is better known to other academics like anthropologists, sociologists and economic historians. Also its fairly well known by Austrian school types and by investors and other actors in the financial sector. There's hundreds of RSs available that address this, so the article has the potential to join the Cross of Gold speech as an FA. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to these hundreds of RSs that address *this*? As in 'this particular concept' rather than a related one, like the relation between money and credit, which can be easily put into the History of Money article (god, that one is horrible, rather than wasting time on this dead end one, why not try and bring that one up to ... not even FA, just NCA ("non crappy article")). Specifically these hundreds of sources that use the term "debt-based monetary system"? This is a good faith question, I'm perfectly willing to change my mind, it's just that an assertion like that ("there's hundreds of RSs available...") without proof is completely meaningless. I could say that at every AfD.VolunteerMarek 18:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I could, but even with my special attention it would take allmost two hours to compile a list of two hundred sources and Im not sure it would be a wise use of time. I see good Laura Hale was recently kind enough to create a massive and well refernced table of sources, but the the AfD in question was still closed as delete, due to the deletionist hoards. Id normally like to point you at fruitful top tier locations as Id did when we talked a few years back, but in this case I cant recommend anything better than google scholar / google books, due to the way the best sources are dispered among the different social sciences. You might want to add the following names to your searches to help you find some of the best ones. The sublime Karl Polanyi who Ive just been extensively citing on our Embedded Liberalism artticle. Marcel Mauss who's book The Gift was one of the main inspirations for Graeber. And also Keith Hart. So there you have some of the leading lights from the 2oth century for the three disciplines mentioned. Of course, the 3 sources already in the article would be a good place to start - if read attentively. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming you *could* do something, but are not going bother doesn't exactly establish your credibility here. Also raving about 'deletionist hordes' (as opposed to folks who proudly claim to have never voted 'delete' in *any* AfD discussion?)

I also have trouble understanding what it is you're going on about. Where did Laura Hale compile a massive and well reference table of sources? For this article? Where? I wanna see it? Or do you just mean that at one point one person compiled some list of sources for one, completely different, article up for deletion and it was deleted anyway so now THIS article MUST be kept? Huh? I mean... huh?

Huh? (sorry I'm still scratching my head over that one)

I have no idea what "Id normally like to point you at fruitful top tier locations as Id did when we talked a few years back" actually means.

I also have no idea what Polanyi, or gift economies have to do with any of this.

I'm sorry but I find your comment to be simply a desperate attempt at saving a crappy article (why not create a new one?) by derailing the discussion with red herrings and irrelevancies. I can't take it in good faith.VolunteerMarek 01:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can view Laura's tables in the AfD I linked to above (you'd need to expand the hats). If you read the responses she got for her effort, you can probably see why Im reluctant to go to the same lengths here.

Mauss was one of the first to prominently challenge the classical liberal view about the prevalence of barter in early society. In gift economies, they still have the concept of debt but, it doesnt tend to be quantified. (ie., they'd recognise the concept of me being in the Colonel's debt for his previous help saving a food bank article from destruction, but they wouldnt recognise the idea of owing someone 20 dollars) Mauss contrasts gift societies with debt based monetary systems, where money serves to quantify debt.

Polanyi introduced the "fictitious commoditiy" concept; he said the three great ones were land, labor and money. He discusses how after the dissolution of the gold standard, money ceased to backed by a real commodity and instead became "token money" - tokens representing debt, though admittedly Polyani says by far the dominant view was that they were tokens of Purchasing power.

When you last challenged me after I summed up hundreds of sources, I was able to point you at specific locations like the FT and Vox from where youd be able to verify my claims with some quick searches. I mentioned this to indicate that within reason Im trying to be as helpful and specific as I can - its just this is a difficult topic, where its hard to get to grips with except by wide ranging reasearch. Adding to the difficulty, its rare for the sources to actually use the term "debt-based monetary system". Again the Graeber book would be a great starting place – he extensively cites previous scholarship on the links between money and debt, going back at least as far as Aristotle. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is all nice, but 100% irrelevant to this AfD. Please stop wasting my (and other people's) time. The statement "its rare for the sources to actually use the term "debt-based monetary system"" is pretty much as close of an admission from you as we're likely to get that *this* particular article is in fact a piece of OR.VolunteerMarek 17:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other phrases with a similar meaning such as credit money or debt-based money are used by numerous sources. The exact phrasing of the article's title does not seem significant because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. Warden (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Volunteer Marek. Its never a waste of time when ARS members contribute to these discussions. As the Colonel demonstrates, our scholarly contributions can be educational for others, and they exemplify collegial conduct. I see my friend Lawrencekhoo, a highly regarded academic economist, has posted on your talk suggesting you withdraw the AfD due to the article's notability and NPOV. If you're concerned about avoiding the waste of further community time, please follow his advice. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a wee note on sources added to the article. In addition to those discussed above, it has a book by Philip Coggan, a senior commentator for both the FT and The Economist. Also a source by Lord Sinclair which has the phrase "debt based monetary system" in the title. All told we have four RSs entirely or at least mostly about the topic in question.

Compare this to the featured article mentioned by the Colonel. Not one of 16 sources for Cross of Gold speech is entirely or even mostly about said speech; they're much broader, covering topics like the Life of Bryan, the presidential campaign or US coinage in general. This was a reasonable nom at the time, as per my first statement many professional economists might initially feel this is an excessively fringe topic. But after the recent improvements by the Rescue squad and good Lawrencekhoo, demonstrating the topic is fact an area of research for leading academics and commentators, objections on OR and notability grounds are surely not sustainable? FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with both those sources is that neither is really about what this article is presumably about. In fact, what exactly is this article is supposed to be about? Look at the first sentence: "A debt-based monetary system is a monetary system where coins, tokens or paper money that represent claims on individuals or institutions are used as the primary form of money in an economy." - that's every single freaking monetary system in the world! If you remove the words "debt-based" the sentence still applies. Hell, it's even better and clearer. The "debt-based" part is the OR. With it, this is just a OR/POV fork of "Monetary system" plain and simple.

If you want an article on credit based theories of money then start that article (perhaps by moving some of the text from this one). But delete this one.

Desperately adding in sources on mostly irrelevant concepts, or folks' worries about the size of debt of various economies (also irrelevant) just to - for some stubborn, pointless and extremist-inclusionist reason - save this particular article is, well, to put it plainly, pathetic. And stupid, since the same text can exist perfectly well in a different article, one that actually makes sense.VolunteerMarek 13:42, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not all monetary systems are debt-based. For a specific example of a type of money which is not debt-based, see bitcoin. Warden (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... no. Which economies exactly use bitcoin as their monetary system? None. And that's because it's not a "monetary system" but a payments system. Two different things. And let's stick to relevant and pertinent examples, please. This is already way off-topic as is.VolunteerMarek 17:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, perhaps more importantly, you're confusing your antecedent and consequent. It may or may not be true that not all monetary systems are debt-based. But the above definition - the opening sentence of the article - is a definition of any monetary system (actually, more or less a tautology), debt based or not.VolunteerMarek 17:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or look at it another way - by reading the lede, as expanded by FeydHuxtable. The first part of the lede is about anthropologists' views of money and this whole credit/debt as origin of money theory, way back in antiquity. Then it transitions right into stuff about Nixon. From antiquity to 1971 in the same paragraph, with nothing in between. See the problem? Two different stories/concepts are synthesized (read WP:SYNTH again) because: a) the concept of the article is badly defined, b) the concept as invented by Wikipedians is not really notable, though some parts may be, and c) any and all sources, no matter how irrelevant are shoved into the article in a desperate attempt to pretend that there are sources on the concept while there aren't.VolunteerMarek 13:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You make some useful points. Assuming we dont get an unexpected result to this AfD, I'll likely further improve the article to address the issues you raise. The Graeber source covers many of the intervening debt based systems which arose between antiquity and today. And it covers the concept of monetary systems being debt based both in the sense of money serving as a unit of account for debt, and in the "dual creation" sense. So Synth issues can be avoided.

Unfortunately , similar definitional problems to the sort you've identified apply to several of the most basic concepts in economics. John Hicks, one of the leading authorities on the relationship between econ and accounting, said that even such apparently simple concepts as Income and Savings can be "bad tools which break in our hands". This is all the more reason to have articles on these topics, so we can inform readers about the various perspectives.

Similar to most of the other sources, Graeber compares debt based systems to those based on commodity money, where money has its own intrinsic value. Again, not all monetary systems are debt based. Granted the distinction isnt as clear cut as we'd like. For Graeber, even gold coins largely acted as IOUs. Switching to the other sense, the dual creation of debt & money can still occur even with a gold standard, once banks start issuing paper money to supplement coinage. The difference is with commodity based systems, typically much less than 50% of new money is created simultaneously with debt - whereas with a debt based system the figure can exceed 95%.

As per the worlds leading economics commentator, Martin Wolf: "The essence of the contemporary monetary system is creation of money, out of nothing, by private banks’ often foolish lending." FT article

As ever, the Colonel's example was well chosen. With Bitcoin even more than with a gold standard, you dont get the dual creation of money and debt. And it is a currency, not just a payment system like say Paypal. To answer your question, Bitcoin is being used all over the world in the above ground economy, even for trivial things like ordering books. In certain dark economies, Bitcoin is even used exclusively. Our article gives Silk Road as an example of this. (I dont advise going on the TOR darknet to investigate, unless you're able to get expert help setting up your client side security. A great many folk have had their lives ruined by stumbling across the ultra-illegal material that infests the TDN, and then being "caught" by the authorities). Its interesting you should mention payment systems though. On the much cooler though less accessible ccc darknet, there's collaborative work going on to develop gear that will allow Bitcoin to be used for a new near universal micro payments system (infeasible to do this with old school systems like Paypal due to high transaction costs.) Several believe this could herald the dawning of web 3.0 and a great Age of Inclusion! FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename/refocus. This article should be renamed to something like Debt theory of money or Origin of money to better reflect its contents. The current title, 'debt-based monetary system', seems like original research, and raises the questions "What makes the monetary system debt-based? And how could it be anything else?" which the article doesn't do a good job of answering. I assume it means a system mostly made up of credit money rather than commodity money, but it isn't very clear. I think this article would be better as an examination of the idea of 'money as debt', in comparison to money as an instrument of exchange and replacement for barter; that's what the content is really about, so it just needs to be renamed to reflect that. Robofish (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Debt theory of money seems like a good compromise. --BDD (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with that. I do think that the proper way to do it is for someone to start a new article on Debt theory of money and move (some of) the existing content to that article, perhaps with a note on the talk page, and delete this one. The present article has undergone metamorphosis several times in its past in regard to its scope, so starting a separate article should prevent that in the future. But sure, at the end of the day, I guess it doesn't matter all that much.VolunteerMarek 04:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, if this is amenable to the objectors here, I can create the Debt theory of money article myself.VolunteerMarek 04:31, 14 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. Tone 21:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Janso[edit]

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

Restored article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Article was restored because has played in the First Qualifying Round of the UEFA Europa League. However, this does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I restored the article following a request on my talk page from the creator; however, it appears that the claim to notability is not enough and he does indeed fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only claim for notability was a match versus MTK Budapest FC who plays in the second tier in Hungary. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Subject fails relevant SNG and the GNG. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:23, 9 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. Tone 21:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Motorsports Group[edit]

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

A PROD tag was removed but without, in my opinion, addressing the reasons the tag was applied. This organization's name does not provide any results from a Google News search and all references found on a search were not reliable sources. All current references are to the organization's own materials. Notability might be being asserted but I was unable to bolster it with any arm's-length third-party expert sources of opinion. Ubelowme _U ^Me 21:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I see that the article is held up by some references, and information is sustainable, but it appears that content is from the organization's own materials, as you said. My own reference search does not also bode well, and as such I am for a weak delete under the guideline that "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed." --TheAustinMan^(Talk|Works) 22:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The organisation only formed in 2011. I can find no coverage about this in reliable sources. The sourcring in the article is all primary. -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find any news coverage at all about this one-year-old auto racing organization. Not even a mention. --MelanieN (talk) 20:56, 13 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} 05:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Hatyai–Songkhla Metropolitan Area[edit]

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

The concept of such a metropolitan area doesn't seem notable. I couldn't find any reliable sources confirming that this is an actual recognised geographical entity. Article is practically unreferenced (the four "references" are totally irrelevant to the subject). Paul_012 (talk) 20:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per WP: GNG, as the sources are totally irrelevant. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unverified. The article offers no evidence that this 30-km "corridor" between two cities actually exists as an entity, or is defined as presented. The two cities, individually, are well covered here and are very different. --MelanieN (talk) 21:01, 13 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. Tone 21:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Agung Pribadi[edit]

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

Article was re-created after being prod'd. This version was prod'd as well, but admin said that because it had been deleted via prod before, it had to go through AFD this time—so here we are. Prod rationales: ① about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league, and ② of the two links given, neither counts as a verifiable and reliable independent third party source with significant coverage. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 19:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 20:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bgwhite (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original PROD'er. As I outlined in the proposed deletion, he fails WP:GNG and has not played in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully professional league, which means that he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. — sparklism ^hey! 08:57, 9 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 main contention here is whether the one reliable source satisfies the general notability guideline. As has been argued by those voting delete, multiple sources are required; though there are some special cases where one source is enough, no-one has provided any reason that one should be enough in this case. Thus, the consensus is to delete the article, according to the GNG. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Word Worm[edit]

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

This article is about a paper puzzle, which is also implemented as a computer game (Facebook app) which lacks the multiple significant coverage in independent reliable sources needed to establish notability. Of the article's sources, lordwordworm.com is a primary source, and reddit and digg are not reliable sources. This leaves a Gamasutra blog post which is from the inventor of the game (not independent), and a CityNews, a local Canberra magazine which provides coverage about the game and company. This is insufficient to establish inclusion in Wikipedia. Whpq (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A merge to Word ladder, a similar but more famous puzzle, is one possibility. Since the puzzle has appeared in a major newspaper and there's at least one book of the puzzles, and it's has some press/web coverage it probably merits a mention, even if it's not judged independently notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:04, 24 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. SwisterTwister talk 03:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The entry provides an impartial, concise and clear description of the Lord Word Worm online game and paper puzzle system. According to feedback, it's often the first point of reference for retailers, syndicates, editors and the general public interested in this topic.

Lord Word Worm is still in its early days of growth and shows signs of becoming a significant entry in the genre of puzzles. Within twelve months of the release of the initial puzzles, they have been syndicated, published online and printed in newspapers and magazines. A compilation book of the puzzles has been published and is now sold in retail stores and online. As with other puzzles' initial stages, (e.g. Sudoku), the author anticipates additional sources to become available as interest and familiarity continues to grow and expand. Inventerprising (talk) 06:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC) — Inventerprising (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- Comment - Wikipedia has inclusion guidelines. Without coverage in reliable sources, the inclusion criteria aren't met. The fact that you state that "interest and familiarity continues to grow and expand" would indicate that it's premature for an article. I also note based on your user name and the statement "According to feedback..." that you may have a conflict of interest. -- Whpq (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree that "interest and familiarity continues to grow and expand" suggests it's premature for an article. Many Wikipedia articles and objects could be described this way (including Wikipedia itself). Furthermore, I believe one of Wikipedia's strengths is providing information on popular emerging topics without the delays inherent in print publications. Inventerprising (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- I started the original article, Inventerprising edited it several times. The article appears to be neutral and unbiased. Also agree with “significant entry in genre of puzzles”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelstevensoz (talk • contribs) 01:17, 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, Davewild (talk) 18:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, as there just aren't multiple independent reliable sources to show notability. Almost none of the sources currently in the article qualify as they are laregely things like the official site, or reddit threads, and there aren't really any more that I can find. If the game does become notable later on, and more sources actually appear that can support it, then there is no prejudice against recreating it then. Rorshacma (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although a redirect/mention in Word ladder might be suitable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, a cut about WP:NFT, anyway, but obviously this fails of notability. Ravenswing 05:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (further information): The article satisfies the General Notability Guideline criteria. With respect to concerns that there are not multiple independent sources (the CityNews article is the only reliable independent source), the Wikipedia guidelines suggest that in the absence of multiple sources, the source must reflect a neutral point of view and be credible. In addition, consideration should be given to the following: the puzzles have been syndicated and published in a major newspaper and several minor newspapers and magazines; the article includes multiple sources (some are not considered reliable, some not considered independent); it has a reliable independent source; it has a book sold online and in retail stores; the article provides an impartial, concise and clear description of the topic. Inventerprising (talk) 06:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - You are free to add commentary, but please, only add one bolded recommendation. -- Whpq (talk) 09:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You claim that the article satisfies the GNG. No, it does not. The requirement that there be multiple reliable sources is a bright-line rule, and there is no text in the guideline providing for exemptions. Notability, by contrast, is not conferred by the publication of a book, by the mere fact of syndication, by the number of unqualifying sources proffered or by however well the article is written. I'm afraid we're considerably more oriented towards ensuring that articles meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines than in exemptions for articles which don't. Ravenswing 15:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. After checked through the GNG numerous times (and again after your comment to ensure I wasn't misguided), there isn't a bright-line rule or any other rule indicating multiple reliable sources are required. The statement "Multiple sources are generally expected" follows the explicit statement that "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources." And the footnote clarifies "In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source...". This is why I feel it's important to consider all the other circumstances mentioned above. Inventerprising (talk) 01:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply: I am rather surprised that in your numerous reads of the GNG, you missed this text, which is plainly on that page: "We require multiple sources so that we can write a reasonably balanced article that complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, rather than representing only one author's point of view. This is also why multiple publications by the same person or organization are considered to be a single source for the purpose of complying with the "multiple" requirement."
      While I'm sure you have an explanation for missing that text on several passes over the page, what's more germane is that this is exactly the sort of situation leading to why WP:COI exists. Ravenswing 03:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. The dot point you quoted refers to multiple sources (which the article currently has). Other dot points in that section refer to reliable sources, independent sources, secondary sources and other matters. In my opinion, the "In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source..." sentence in the GNG is significant. Inventerprising (talk) 06:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply - That statement isn't that significant given that it appears in the footnotes. Generally speaking, multiple independent reliable sources are needed. How many is "multiple"? That depends on the source of the coverage, and what the coverage represents. Because of that, editor can disagree on inclusion. That said, it's extremely rare for a subject to be deemed notable based on only one reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This one's not so clear cut. The article appears to be neutral and unbiased. If we assume the newspapers and book sales are an indication of some interest then keeping the article aligns more closely with Wiki's "principle and spirit" and five pillars. The risk is wasted storage space if the article is not actually a significant topic of interest. Michaelstevensoz (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC) — Michaelstevensoz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and is also the creator of the article. [reply]

Comment: Would you care to proffer a valid rationale to keep which pertains to the pertinent retention criteria? Ravenswing 02:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I first saw Lord Word Worm puzzles in a magazine. I'm a puzzle fan, hadn't seen these ones before and recognised they were a step above the usual (IMO). I couldn't find a decent summary online at the time other than the author(s) website which seemed long-winded to me, so had an attempt at creating the Wiki page.

One of the objectives of the article is to provide a concise and clear set of instructions (similar to other Wiki articles covering board, card and computer games, other puzzles, quiz shows, sports etc). From this perspective, the official website is not an independent source, but it is a very reliable source; we can assume the website's author(s) are experts on the topic.

The puzzles have been published in varying styles, shapes and complexities online and in print, in magazines and newspapers (including Australia's largest newspaper), along with instructions. The book contains a series of puzzles and detailed instructions (better than their website IMO). I don't think this is appropriate to include as a reliable source, but it is another type of source. I'm not sure if/how to include some without copyright issues. It also suggests there's some public interest and the interest isn't short term.

The article has multiple sources of varying combinations (eg reliable/unreliable, dependent/independent, primary, secondary etc), but unfortunately I haven't been able to find any independent reliable sources other than CityNews. CityNews is a well-respected weekly magazine covering Australia's capital city and surrounding areas. The article covers the company and Lord Word Worm.

If we want to follow GNG completely "to the letter", there's a requirement of multiple sources "...so that we can write a reasonably balanced article", but no requirement for multiple independent reliable sources. If this were not the case, then the "in the absence of multiple sources" footnote would be contradictory.

The GNG doesn't warrant deletion of the article. However, I don't believe the decision to keep the article should be based strictly on the GNG. Rather, the GNG should be a guide. I believe Wiki's Fifth Pillar "Wikipedia does not have firm rules" is more important. It indicates "Rules in Wikipedia are not carved in stone" and "The principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording."

It's likely there are other people out there like me who find Lord Word Worm appealing or are just interested in researching it. It's also likely they'll use the internet to look for a concise summary of the topic. Isn't this what Wikipedia is for? I'm confident the article is currently impartial, unbiased, accurate, neutral and doesn't contain promotional/advertising content. In this case we can confirm all of this simply by reading it. So what's the harm in keeping the article? Due to these circumstances it's not setting a bad precedent, and if no one else is interested in this topic, then at worst we've wasted a few kilobytes of storage. Michaelstevensoz (talk) 02:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you. I'm staying quiet due to COI concerns that were raised, but more than happy to discuss the copyright issues you mentioned. Inventerprising (talk) 01:12, 13 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. Tone 21:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

White Noise (EP)[edit]

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

Delete. There's nothing on this page and its been this way for a few years. MrIndustry (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; it's not even linked from the artist's article. Completely unreferenced and essentially contentless. Powers ^T 17:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm coming up with fansites/social networking sites/blogs, but no significant coverage in reliable sources; it does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. Gongshow ^Talk 18:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 22:06, 6 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. Tone 21:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic Trading Cards[edit]

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

The show is notable, but individual pieces of merchandise generally are not. Unlikely this has been covered substantially in independent reliable sources. (It's also misleading, stating that it's a card game when it's really just a card set.) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete without prejudice Probably WP:TOOSOON. According to the article, the game isn't going to be publicly released until next week, and it doesn't look like there's coverage in WP:RS yet. But given how crazy people get about MLP fandom, I wouldn't at all be surprised if the topic merited an article even in a few weeks' time. --BDD (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in 10 seconds flat. The existence of the card set will be fine in the merch section on the main show page (and perhaps if sourced, the nods to the fandon on the fandom page) but as just trading cards (not a game), there's no way this will be notable for a standalone article. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not an article for deletion This is an article that covers a subject that i was very interested ti read about. The cards will be i circulation starting next week so bronys will be happy to refer to this article, i believe this to be a notable subject, a footnote on the MLP merchandise wouldn't be enough. As for the other issues, enterplay, bronycon, eqd, and many vendors have released statements about the cards, their popularity, the types of cards and the contest on the 'location' cards, those sources could be incorporated into the article. As for the lead, the about section could easily be made the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.222.212 (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG; too soon for a standalone article. If it is found to be notable at a later time, then it would warrant a standalone article, but right now it isn't notable. - Sudo Ghost 19:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. Insufficient independent published sources extant at this time to clear GNG. Nothing that I see but adds and blog posts. Carrite (talk) 15:32, 9 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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Manaf Tlass[edit]

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

Non-notable, one event. FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The man is notable as one of the inner circle. More work needs to be done to discover notable events of his in the past, though. rawb (talk) 01:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is hardly notable enough for Wikipedia in itself. FunkMonk (talk) 00:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs expansion, but the man is clearly notable. If his defection is true, then it would be the highest level defection yet in the Syrian conflict, and quite possibly the only defection so far of someone from Assad's inner circle. As the Tlass family has previously been very close to the Assad's, it also shows that the leadership is becoming increasingly fractured as a result of the regimes response to the uprising. This is a notable person, and a notable event, giving a better insight into the the government handling of the uprising, and no doubt further information on Manaf will emerge soon. MrPenguin20 (talk) 10:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously notable. Mezigue (talk) 10:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very notable, as confirmed by BBC that developed a profile for him.Egeymi (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is so clearly notable, I would question how it could possibly be nominated for deletion. Especially now that he is all over the mainstream news, in articles such as this one.--Bernie44 (talk) 13:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bernie44 for your direct approach which I could not display.Egeymi (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting Speedy keep -- highly notable, would be so even if not for recent events, due to his significance within the regime. BBC has a profile of him here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18734785 , describing him as "a member of Mr Assad's so-called inner circle", and the Daily Telegraph describes him as a "key general". One 2005 source reported that "Manaf Tlas, son of former Defence Minister Mustafa Tlas, and Bashar's brother Mahir, are the effective heads of the Republican Guard, perhaps the most potent fighting force in Syria." The BBC reports that he had been under a "form of house arrest since May 2011", so this is also more than just a recent event.
Google News shows over 1000 articles on his (presumed) defection, and they are front page stories on many media outlets. A non-notable person's defection would not hit the front pages of the global news media in this way.
Note that as of this comment, all commenters apart from the proposer have expressed opinions that this is a keep/speedy keep, using similar arguments to the above. -- Chronulator (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could agree with merging him with his father's article. I have not seen a single new argument which isn't just "he was significant to the regime", that is till just a one event rationale, he never did anything notable other than defecting, his father, however, is notable, so merge him into that article. FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is simply countered: if you do an online archive search, you can see that, because of this significant role in the regime, Manaf Tlas has been the subject of discussion in citeable news articles, books, and research papers all the way back to 2003 (see the book Syria: Neither Bread Nor Freedom), establishing clear notability under the WP:GNG criteria, independently of that related to this most recent event. (Edit: actually, he's mentioned in an article in Le Monde Diplomatique in almost the same breath as Bashar al-Assad, in an article published in 2000: [2], at the time of Assad's rise to power)

Now read WP:BLP1E: there are three criteria there that all need to be satistfied to exclude an individual from being covered by their own article under that rule, and two of the three of them are falsified by the evidence above. Most of all, BLP1E itself states that "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals." "Low-profile" does not cover people who are the subject of comment by global news media over the course of a decade. WP:BIO clearly applies, and WP:BLP1E does not, making this a procedural speedy keep. -- Chronulator (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be suggested that it should be merged with Mustafa Tlass page. Is it fair? It is waste of time to establish the notability of a person who is notable as evidenced by Chronulator and by media reports.Egeymi (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article clearly meets WP:GNG. The subject is notable and the article should be kept. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he's a brigadier general, passes Milhist guidelines on flag/general officers, and he's commanded in 'combat'; this uprising. Definite keep, strange nomination. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - very important former figure in Assad's inner circle. The following report from before the Syrian uprising indicates his relevance in the Syrian elite inner circle [3]. Also, the article as of today is well cited and researched. Guest2625 (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update to my previous comments: See this news story: "Tlass defection will shake Syria's Sunnis". The National. 8 July 2012. Quote: "Manaf Tlass was no ordinary general. He served on the central committee of the ruling Baath party." -- Chronulator (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep easily meets WP:GNG. Valenciano (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Velanciano wrote, it easily meets WP:GNG. Former member of inner circle, former general in most elite military unit, member of most prominent sunni family of Syria who took his things and defected. If that isn´t notable, I don´t know what is. It seems to me that FunkMonk is just pushing his own POV. EllsworthSK (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article meets the guidleines of WP:GNG, I'm not seeing how it's "non-notable", nor do I think that WP:BLP1E applies. - Sudo Ghost 19:06, 8 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 speedily deleted under criterion G11 by Amatulic (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Kurtz[edit]

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

Vanity piece about an artist written about the subject, but probably not speedy-able because there are some (very questionable) assertions of importance. I can only find any sources other than his own website, and so fails WP:GNG. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up and found Harvey Kurtz on Deviant art website. I also found that he has been mentioned by a Dominatrix on twitter. Looking at the entries for the other fetish artists I see material that could equally be classed as promotional or autobiographical in nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harvey Kurtz (talk • contribs) 18:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the content at the Deviant Art website was created by you; the content of that site is user created, and so it's not a reliable source. Neither, for that matter, is twitter. As far as there being other similarly atrocious articles on wikipedia, I would totally agree with you, but that isn't a good reason to keep this one. You need to read the reliable sources guideline. Also, please read WP:Autobiography, and stop using wikipedia to promote yourself. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:11, 6 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. Tone 21:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ranchhoddas Shamaldas Chanchad[edit]

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

Film article is enough for the content mentioned in the proposed article. Though famous character, no need to have separate article. - Vivvt^Talk 14:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One-time character, nothing here that can't be stated in the main article. Excessive plot (WP:NOT#PLOT). – sgeureka ^t•c 09:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 16:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable at all. Just fan-fantasy. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:47, 12 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cruel Summer (GOOD Music album)[edit]

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

Unreleased album that does not meet WP:NALBUMS for unreleased material, additionally the released singles do not meet WP:NALBUMS for singles. Note particularly that NALBUMS/Unreleased material requires "significant independent coverage in reliable sources" and is only applied in "a very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects". This project does not meet that standard. Tgeairn (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 03:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a great primer for the album as further details emerge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.88.118.109 (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can't believe someone would try to delete this. First of all, the album's name and release date was only annouunced on June 21. The album won't be released until August, so the promotional push hasn't started in full yet. In fact, only one song has been released yet, which was two days ago. And finally, this is an collaboration album that is being created by Kanye West, one of the biggest musical artists in the world. Anything he does, especially musical albums, is high-profile. Your arguments fall flat. --Twlighter (talk) 06:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So, you're telling us, nothing at all is yet reliably known about this album apart from its name, a future release date, a song (which has its own article), and a publishing program (which has its own article)? Uncle G (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons listed above. Seriously, I don't know what you were thinking, flagging this for deletion. Contractor815 (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I understand the above "Keep" recommendations, but they do not address the issue of WP:NALBUMS. The two sources in the article (as well as web and news searches) do not meet the standard of "significant independent coverage in reliable sources" and "exceptionally high-profile project" required for unreleased material. In fact, it appears that available sources disagree as to release date, artist lineup, and track listing. Also, notability is not inherited; so Kanye West's notability does NOT extend to any/every project he or his company is involved with. --Tgeairn (talk) 16:17, 3 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) 13:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as slightly WP:TOOSOON. Although it isn't policy, WP:HAMMERTIME expains it pretty clearly. Roodog2k (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"If the name and track order of a future album are not yet known, the album is very likely to have its page deleted from Wikipedia." It appears to have a name. And it is also being released a month from now. Statυs (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

QED If the name AND track order of an album are not known... Hence, delete. Roodog2k (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete also per WP:TOOSOON, not clear what this album is about, not enough reviews about it. I actually got to this article by following a Wikipedia link making it the next album of Jay-Z but apparently not since he's not mentioned anywhere in the article. Need more info about his album before creating an article about it. Laurent (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We got a confirmed release date, title and 2 singles. Statυs (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NALBUMS and WP:TOOSOON. Having a release date, a title and 2 singles (which, as history has shown again and again, may not be on the album) does not demonstrate notability. I suggest User:Status and other familiarise themselves with these guidelines. SplashScreen (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and WP:TOOSOON. However I agree that once there is more information, or it's released then it will certainly qualify for an article. It would be a shame to delete it then have to have someone rewrite or go through undeletion process. Instead can the closing admin send it to the Article Incubator or userfy if someone wants it, though I think the incubator would be better. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 08:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Callanecc's conditions. If this album is released a month from now, there's is going to be a lot of moaning and complaining when someone has to go through the process of a re-write or undeletion even though both aren't necessarily difficult to do but it would be an annoyance nonetheless. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 12:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some of the album's details are still unknown at this time, but regarding the "very small number of exceptionally high-profile projects" standard in WP:NALBUMS for unreleased albums, a good amount of coverage currently exists - e.g., [4][5][6][7][8][9] - and the related short film produced in advance of the album's release premiered at Cannes. Gongshow ^Talk 16:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per reasons above. SE KinG. ^{User page.} _Talk. 22:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: There's a significant amount of coverage solidifying the article's notability, including 3 singles (2 of which have attained chart success and have received considerable Wikipedia entries) along with the film of the same name that has already been confirmed and premiered. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 11:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm moving this comment from the talk page: Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 01:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep*- This is useful information and there is no reason it needs to be deleted. I personally use this page all of the time. Don't remove it! - this unsigned comment was written by 65.185.19.94.

KEEP:- I have no idea why someone would want to remove this page, its a highly notable and anticipated album coming out this summer, and some of its tracks have already been released as singles. Green-Halcyon (formerly Aunty-S) (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FUCKING KEEP THE PAGE

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as a copyright violation. SmartSE (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stratos "Stan" Antipatitis[edit]

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

Puff piece for apparently non-notable performer, also an unsourced BLP. Speedy deletion declined due to claim to notability, but I have been unable to verify the claim. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reason for deletion in itself, but the article creator also appears to have a close connection to the subject. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out to be a copyvio of the artist's webpage anyway; listed for deletion under G12. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:37, 6 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} 05:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editgate[edit]

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

Editgate, as a topic, has not received enough coverage in reliable sources for a stand alone article per WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage at Shooting of Trayvon Martin#Misleading audio editing by NBC is sufficient. The term doesn't really show any promise of WP:PERSISTENCE, but there's no reason we can't add a sentence at that section to say that some media outlets have labelled the incident "Editgate." --BDD (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure soapboxing. The article offers no evidence that any reliable source has actually used the term "editgate", and I could not find any reliable source use of the term on searching; it crops up only on a few blogs and POV sites.[10] Furthermore, the article claims "various errors" but cites only one. That one did receive mainstream coverage, but not under this name, and this has not risen to the level of a "fill-in-blank-gate" scandal. As pointed out by BDD, there is already a whole section on this incident at the George Zimmerman article; that is plenty. --MelanieN (talk) 21:24, 13 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Messina[edit]

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

Non-notable author. Only claim to fame appears to be the novel Fashionstas which is claimed (without citation given nor any to be found) to be a national bestseller, and which was optioned by a producer in 2004, but never developed into a film. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm looking for sources, but if I can't find any then it might be worthwhile to create an article for Fashionistas and then use her name as a redirect if that ends up being the only thing she's notable for. I'm finding that there should be reviews for the book out there, so if all else fails then that could be a potential outcome.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fashionistas doesn't appear that notable in itself. Claims that it is a bestseller can't be verified, and the movie deal is eight years old, but has gone nowhere. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS It should be noted that the article was created by an editor who appears to be a "Wikipedian for hire": he has created 15 articles in a single day, and they all have been speedily deleted, tagged for speedy deletion, or nominated for deletion at AFD. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Be that as it may, if I can find reviews and coverage in reliable sources to show that the book received attention, it'd still pass WP:NBOOK if we have enough RS. I'm finding quite a bit of attention for the book in the Google news archives, so I'm leaning towards creating an article for the book, deleting the author's page, and using it as a redirect to the Fashionistas novel's article. She's done other works, but none of those appear to be notable enough for an article. The thing about the articles/subjects that the Wiki-for-pay authors create is that if they are notable or have something notable about them, that the subject was originally created in a semi-sleazy manner is sort of irrelevant. It just means that it'd have to be properly sourced and edited for any promotional tone. (Can you tell I hate the wiki-for-pay editors?) Hopefully the WFP editor has been blocked or is at least being watched by the admins, though.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reviews[11][12][13][14][15] and other mentions[16][17][18][19][20][21][22] She's written a number of books that have received press attention, particularly Fashionistas and Little Vampire Women. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a question though- if I were to make an article focusing on Fashionistas, could we use the same sources in both articles? I've not really read anything that says we can't, but I've always leaned towards putting everything in the same article if I had to use the same sources to RS different articles. (In other words, I didn't have enough RS to put different ones in each article.) If we can't or if it's discouraged, would there be enough RS for Messina's article if I were to create a Fashionistas article or would it be better to just have the one article with a ton of sources?Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can't anyone post anything they want on Publishers Weekly? If so, those refs don't mean a thing (and reek of puffery at any rate). I'm still looking, but I haven't seen anything that makes me think that either the author or the book is notable enough for inclusion. Heather (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No, while PW does rely on interns to read and write reviews, it isn't the type of site where they accept submissions from just anyone. Anyone can submit a book for a potential review, but that isn't a guarantee that it'll be reviewed nor that it'll be a positive one if it's reviewed. PW tends to be pretty generous with reviews, but it's pretty much up to the person who is reviewing it. I've seen them write some pretty scathing reviews of books in the past. I usually prefer to have PW as a backup to other, more in-depth reviews though. As far as sources go, there's less than I'd normally like but River Front Times and the St. Louis Dispatch aren't exactly sources to sneeze at. In any case, in order to get PW to post your review or column you'd have to pretty much be employed by them in some format (intern, standard employee, etc). It's not as easy as you submitting a review or article and having them post it, which is why the website's been usable as a source in the past.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As she has written more than one significant book. Fashinstas is in 484 libraries, Little vampire women -- which looks like a fascinating rewrite of Little Women (", the girls are vampires and neighbor Laurie wants to join them." according to the WorldCat entry) has 523; the other 3 have several hundred each also. In general, even if it is only one book, it makes more sense to write the article about the author, as the author may write more (and generally does, if one becomes notable) & so there is potential for expansion. I agree exactly with Tokyogirl about PW. It is very selective, though the reviews are quite brief; it is used primarily by librarians, & concentrates on the books they are likely to buy--which are as well as they can predict it, the ones likely to become notable DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 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, Sandstein 06:07, 29 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:55, 6 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 (actually fairly close to an outright keep). The article has been given a few references that give merit to the case for notability, even though the "keep" voters acknoweledge that improvement is needed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik Fexeus[edit]

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

Article not sutible for an article Mdann52 (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a TV-host, etc, this person should be eligible for WP:CREATIVE etc, but that is not yet demonstrated. Delete, unless new references are provided.Squareanimal (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 21:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not demonstrate notability; doesn't meet WP:GNG either. CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 00:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current article is unimpressive but, even so, cites two reasonably substantial articles from major Swedish newspapers. The corresponding Swedish Wikipedia article seems rather better and cites more sources - we might well be better off with a translation of that rather than the current article, but that is a matter of editing. PWilkinson (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The two sources used in the English article so far are from the daily newspapers in Sweden with the largest and the third largest circulation. This article is from another of the major Swedish newspapers. A search for "Henrik Fexeus" in sv:Mediearkivet ("The Media Archive"), which collects articles from a number of Swedish newspapers, gives 1753 hits. I looked a the first ten or so and, yes, they seem to be all about him (it's not a common name). Most of them will mention him only in passing, of course, or as part of their tv guides, but significant coverage in a number of the major Swedish newspapers has already been linked to, so ... /Julle (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and maybe I should add: the coverage is of course about him in his role as television host and writer. /Julle (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - even though the article itself is badly written and makes no mention of his appearance on Swedens got talent. He is a notable figure.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:01, 11 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Centineo[edit]

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

PROD removed.

Not a notable actor per WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG

He has had no significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions - only a two minor roles and 3 recurring roles.

Has no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:31, 24 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete" No sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canvashat (talk • contribs) 22:48, 30 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage found in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Gongshow ^Talk 18:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, as the sources are unreliable, plus the subject does not meet WP:NACTOR. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 21:09, 6 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Kirkby[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I don't think this person passes the notability guidelines for biographies. Most of the sources in the article don't cover the subject in any detail, or fail our guidelines on identifying reliable sources. The most likely-looking source is this one from SCIP Insight, but according to the article, the subject was a regional coordinator for them, so it may not be truly independent. I couldn't find any other sources online. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Lack of independent coverage. The article fails to explain any concrete contribution he's made to any business-related displine: if he's really notable as a thinker there should be a summary of his ideas and their impact, explaining his unique contribution. Instead there's just a lot of stuff about the positions he's held and the non-notable awards he's received. If he'd written a book that's received media attention, been in charge of an important company, held a senior academic position, or been widely acknowledged in business or consumer media, that would be probable grounds for notability, but he doesn't seem to have done any of that. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:32, 26 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. SwisterTwister talk 03:03, 29 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subject to later creation when better sources could be found. I saw only a single reliable source at Marketing magazine, but it only mentions what he does in passing an an article about industrial spying. I think that he fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 10 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 Indian Idol 5. Sandstein 07:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tia Kar[edit]

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

Indian singing-reality-show contestant. Stood 6th. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Also claims to be an upcoming actress of films that haven't started their principal photography. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, coming in 6th on a reality show is not notability, so she shouldn't have an article until those alleged films are made. Specs112 t c 13:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Indian Idol 5 for now. Actually a BLP1E, could be re-splitted in a short time when the films in which she starred will be released. Cavarrone (talk) 07:14, 26 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. SwisterTwister talk 03:03, 29 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Indian Idol 5 as suggested by Cavarrone seems to be the way to go, until release and notability check of said films. Zujua (talk) 06:33, 7 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} 05:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Dalby[edit]

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

Non-notable - competes in non-notable events Peter Rehse (talk) 02:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 02:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has never competed for a top or second tier MMA organization so obviously fails WP:MMANOT. He may become notable, but right now that's just WP:CRYSTALBALL. Mdtemp (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As previously stated, the subject has no fights for even a second tier MMA organization and does not meet the notability criteria for an MMA fighter. Papaursa (talk) 22:53, 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, SwisterTwister talk 02:58, 29 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 12:50, 6 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 per unanimous positive consensus and the absence of deletion requests outside of the nominator. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Govt. Post Graduate College Jhang[edit]

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

Possible hoax, no sources at all Mdann52 (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Likely not a hoax. Affiliated Colleges of the University of the Punjab. Roodog2k (talk)

Keep – Certainly not a hoax. Few online links are available (example). As the existence of college is verifiable, I think it also passes our notability guidelines. — Bill william compton^Talk 13:47, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This college does exist—have found several references to it; see Roodog2k's comment above, and this, among others. I found it on Google Maps and added the coordinates in the article. Beyond that, I can't find much information on it. If the article is kept, it should be moved to Government Postgraduate College, Jhang (to bypass the abbreviation). •••Life of Riley (T–C) 23:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Consensus is that verified secondary and tertiary institutions are kept. Needs renaming though to get rid of the abbreviation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite clearly a notable college. TerriersFan (talk) 15:30, 12 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 speedily deleted under criterion A7 by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rahid Ulusel[edit]

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

Not notable autobiography. No GNews or archive hits. GHits are to social media or on-line bookstores. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC. Brought to AfD due to claim of notability in article. GregJackP Boomer! 12:30, 6 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Humpty Dumpty Publishing[edit]

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

Unfortunately, I was unable to find enough reliable coverage for this rather new publishing company. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems mostly to be vanity publishing, or at the least just a small publisher starting in business. They haven't published a book yet so as a result completely not notable. Seems that the individual names involved may be approaching notability themselves based on some of the awards, but that doesn't mean this company is notable. Add the fact that the article is an advertisement that looks more like a press release (though that's obviously fixable) and seems like a copyvio (though I can't find a source.) Canterbury Tail talk 12:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nominator and User:Canterbury Tail. They haven't actually published a book yet and all I've found is social media, self-generated material, and a good deal of confusion with the eponymous American childrens' magazine. No reliable sources found; notability is neither asserted nor present. Ubelowme _U ^Me 14:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE Just because something is new doesn't mean it doesn't exist? i recently brought a copy of Topsy Turvy Tales by Humpty Dumpty Publishing from Amazon, surely a company must start from somewhere? - i even looked for them on here to see if they had any more titles available — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamFannyadams (talk • contribs) 16:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is an encyclopaedia, not a directory of everything that exists. Moreover, it is an encyclopaedia of things that can be covered verifiably, neutrally, and without making stuff up onesself. It is not a free advertising billboard for advertising onesself or one's up-and-coming business. Writing an article about one's own business on Wikipedia isn't an "original marketing stunt". It's a sad, tired, and woefully unoriginal bad idea that thousands have had before. Claiming that the business is "renowned for original marking stunts" and sourcing it to an autobiography that doesn't even say that isn't an original marketing stunt, either. People have long since done the whole bogus sourcing to autobiographies, press releases, and sources that simply don't support the content at all, thing, as is the case for this article, too. Uncle G (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Also note that anyone can list a book on Amazon, you just need to pay them to act as a distributor for you, it doesn't indicate that you or your book is notable. Canterbury Tail talk 20:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:51, 6 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 speedily deleted by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs). See deletion log for rationale. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adamu hamman[edit]

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

Unsourced biography of a living person which reads like a curriculum vitae/résumé. Subject appears to be non-notable, and the article is written in a promotional tone. jfd34 (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced, spam, probably not notable. Possible speedy as spam. Hairhorn (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. There is a lack of references, and a quick google search reveals no news results, and the only web search results appear to be this page, and Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, etc. Does not meet WP:BASIC.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:46, 6 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} 05:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Janoskians[edit]

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

Crystal bol and fails WP:GNG Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two mentions from mainstream press cited, where they are the subject of the article.A quick click of the "news" search above also yields this: [23], another mainstream press mention. Seems to pass WP:GNG to me. They also seem to meet the "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" criterion of WP:ENT. -- The Anome (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It still can be a hype. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Anome's rationale. Article passes GNG and meets a specific criterion of ENT. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 06:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unfortunately, as they are now officially the next big thing and are making the news for making young girls scream and faint! Janoskians overshadow Karise show The-Pope (talk) 13:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what? If I unbutton my shirt in public girls also scream and faint (in horror, btw). That does not make me noteworthy. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's how people make it to fame these days!

. No, but in all seriousness, Media attention/Significant coverage = WP:SIGCOV; a "cult" following = WP:ENT #2. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 02:59, 14 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} 05:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of Syria (Australia)[edit]

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

Can't find the necessary multiple third-party reliable sources to show that this article passes the general notability guidelines. Since the site is a Wordpress-hosted site, I almost used ((db-web)), but I think that this is a sufficiently controversial topic for a full AfD process to be more appropriate. -- The Anome (talk) 10:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence of third party coverage to meet WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The group appears non-notable, basically just an outreach by the embassy. It is hard to tell on searching, since the other more notable organization Friends of Syria Group is often referred to simply as "Friends of Syria". I believe all the links I found, even the stories reported in the Australian press, [24] referred to the "Group," which was then meeting in Paris. --MelanieN (talk) 22:38, 13 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 by Jimfbleak. (NAC) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 11:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HELOVESYOU.INFO[edit]

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

Should really have been speedied, but since the article creator (editing as an IP) repeatedly removes the templates, I'm listing it here. Unsourced, non-notable, promotion-only article. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete obvious spam and as for the use of IP addresses, The duck test seems to work here rather well. --Fæ (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry i"m not a wiki nerd like the rest of you who keep trying to delete my story sorry i have a life and didnt know how wikipedia worked right away. and yeah i kept taking it down stop hating — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romeo Team (talk • contribs) 6 July 2012

Nobody needs to spam little do you know its a true story — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romeo Team (talk • contribs) 10:45, 6 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} 05:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Gorman[edit]

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

not been taken care of and no reliable sources Redsky89 (talk) 07:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whew. Busy whan a child actor: 136 episodes of Home and Away for the seven years from 2002 to 2009... until he left acting at 12 to be a "regular" kid. Enough to merit a redirect to Recurring characters of Home and Away#B. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At a guess I'd say there would be enough coverage in the TV mags, but so far we don't have it sourced, and there's not much online, so I agree with the redirect for now. I imagine he will satisfy WP:N at some point, but we can write the sourced article then. --99of9 (talk) 10:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He seems to have some mild merit when we refer to WP:NACTOR because he was a recurrent character and participated in more than one show. HOWEVER, the notability guidelines say that just satisfying the basic criteria is not a guarantee of inclusion and the lack of verifiable reliable sources makes me lean towards a Delete. I am, however, hoping that he makes it big in the future and allow us to write a worthy and decent article about him. Also, remember that an abandoned/neglected article is not necessarily grounds for deletion. See WP:NEGLECT. -- Loukinho (talk) 03:15, 22 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:31, 21 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V unless a reliable source (not IMDB) can verify the role, redirect if such a source is demonstrated. His name doesn't appear to be mentioned on the official site, the TV5 site, the .... --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:07, 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) 08:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is that we need to get rid of the article, but whether or not there should be a redirect should be discussed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~. I agree with those above. Seven years on one of Australia's most watched soaps means he's a plausible search term, IMO. Jenks24 (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point by Joe below. Prompted by his comment, I had a look for reliable sources (checked gnews, NewsBank and the Fairfax archives) and couldn't find a single mention of someone called Isaac Gorman being in Home and Away. Changing my vote to no redirect per Joe and WP:V, though I'll be happy to change if someone has more success than me looking for a reliable source. Jenks24 (talk) 11:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No redirect per WP:V without the demonstration of a single reliable source of the role, which is the case at the moment. Sneaky hoaxes are rare, but not non-existent, e.g., the late great C-movie actor Morton Schwartz, an unusual case in that we finally found affirmative evidence that it was an intentional hoax. To be clear, I've got no issue with the notability sufficient for a redirect--if the claim is accurate. --j⚛e decker ^talk 18:12, 6 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. No consensus about this group of persons. Individual instead of group nominations would be more appropriate here. Sandstein 07:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Hallbom[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tim Hallbom (2nd nomination)

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

... and this lot again:

Removed

... from this AFD as per the discussion below. Famous _dog (c) 19:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so i realise my stupid mistake in nominating these NLP authors for deletion alongside the other disparate NLP stubs in the previous debate. That clearly caused it to be closed as no consensus ... Let me start again: I think these non-notable WP:AUTHORS need some independent, third-party WP:RSs to support their WP:BLPs or they should be deleted forthwith. They are currently only supported by links to their own websites and/or the websites of their collaborators, creating both a WP:WALLEDGARDEN and multiple WP:COIs. The only possible exception I can see is Fazal Inayat-Khan, but his page involves rampant peacockery of the first order. Famous _dog (c) 12:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Famous _dog (c) 13:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Famous _dog (c) 13:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. This is the third joint nomination Famousdog has brought in this area. The second was closed no consensus (and I think the first ought to have been closed that way too), in part because of the difficulty of finding sources and judging notability when so many articles are brought at once. Of the current list, I've looked at Stephen Gilligan and he seems notable enough for an entry. If there are minor NLP issues that have stand-alone articles, they can be merged if appropriate without bringing them to AfD. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment When I Google Stephen Gilligan all I get are his websites and WP:PROMOTIONAL NLP websites. Please add any independent RSs to the relevant articles to establish notability and I will happily remove the appropriate pages from this AFD. Famous _dog (c) 19:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Famous _dog (c) 19:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added secondary sources to that article on 22 June, during the first AfD. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tim Hallbom. The only substantial coverage I can find on him is an article from Sommelier Journal[25] which might be a reliable source but is a bit frothy. Aside from that there's a few mentions in books but nothing substantial. No comment on the rest yet - it's hard with these bulk deletions where the notability of each person must be separately determined. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Stephen Gilligan The existing refs on the article were generally crappy (a paragraph in Techniques In Adlerian Psychology is not enough to prove notability though the Edge magazine article is ok I think; I've not read Room for Change but the page refs indicate he's mentioned more than once). However I've found a review of one of his books and another of a book he edited in academic journals.[26][27] Google Scholar also shows a few highly-cited papers by him. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding Stephen Gilligan, the article as it currently stands does a poor job of showing him to be anything other than a minor academic. Two of the sources are self-published, one (the NLP academy) is promotional and it should be pointed out that several of the mentions of "Gilligan" in Techniques in Adlerian Psychology are to a different Gilligan. There are indeed some highly cited articles on Google Scholar and it is likely that this is the same Stephen Gilligan (however, I know two Steve Dakins that both work in the field of visual psychophysics, hardly the most common name in hardly the most prominent field, so I am always careful to not make the assumption that we are talking about the same person). As such the article fails miserably to establish WP:NOTABILITY. Lots of citations doesn't necessarily make you a significant figure. The best way to attract citations is to cite yourself lots or get something spectacularly wrong. Famous _dog (c) 09:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Connirae Andreas. No reliable sources on article or showing up in Google. All her books are published by Real People Press which she co-owns, and nobody seems to review them. No evidence of notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to summarise, although some interesting points have been raised, I haven't seen any arguments here, or changes to the articles, that dissuade me from my opinion that we should delete all. Famous _dog (c) 09:13, 3 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) 08:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This would probably be easier to solve if the articles were nominated individually. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per Slimvirgin. I suspect some of these do deserve deletion, but its too much to research in one AFD. Individual AFD's make more sense, so the discussions are more thorough. For the record, i created the article on Real People Press, which was in the previous group AFD, which i missed. I have no connection to NLP, aside from selling their titles in the past at a book wholesaler (NOT commissioned sales work).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's "too much to research"? Are you serious? That's basically just saying "I can't be bothered to find some RSs"! Okay, to try and bring this to a close, how about I remove Stephen Gilligan and Fazal Inayat-Khan? So far those are the only articles that anybody has even attempted to defend! Famous _dog (c) 19:42, 8 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} 05:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Des Rangila[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG: "Articles which are unlikely to grow beyond stubs should not have a separate article." Secret of success (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not even a slightest hint of notability. It's existence is no reason for it's existence here. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:46, 30 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 16:35, 9 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. I've taken a good look through the sources brought forward and those available online, and they are all passing mentions or self-published. As such, the delete arguments bear more fruit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Vitale[edit]

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

I am unable to find significant coverage of this chef. The only sources that have written about her are these: [28] [29] [30], of which the latter two are only trivial mentions. Person doesn't appear to meet requirements for WP:GNG. Till 11:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article does claim notability; however, I would agree with 'Till I Go Home' in that there are not many sources to support the article. I know that sources are what makes or breaks the notability of an article (and even more source with biographies) but I would vote for "weak keep" if there was anything remotely reliable making reference to the notability claims (The Sentinel, Progresso's The Idea Pantry, the YouTube recognition, etc.). Basically, I am saying that the claim or notability is there in the article and the article will survive Rfd, IF (and a big if) reliable sources can be found and cited in the article. I cannot locate any as of yet but good luck to those who want to keep. --Morning277 (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Strange. She seems notable, but goole, google news, google archives, and even google.it all come up with very, very little. Unless more refs are found, I'm afraid deletion is the way to go. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It may be simpy too soo for her to have an article. Her TV hosting appears to be really a set of youtube videos that she has hosted. It has attracted some notice, such as mentions like pthis, but has not received the substantial coverage needed to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It appears that she is actually working with Hollywood to launch some of the new YouTube Original Web Series with a company called Electus Entertainment along with celebrity chef Duff Goldman AKA the 'Ace of Cakes' from Food Network headed up by a former Food Network exec. Although her involvement is not on television, it is very notable and is part of a huge move into a digital world. p[31]. Keep - I did some more digging and have updated the article appropriately with her involvement with Everyday Health and their 'Recipe Rehab' web series along with her columns she writes for a newspaper (The Daily Journal). It appears that, although sometimes difficult to find, there is credibility to this person's work. It is difficult to find in google because she has so many youtube videos that clutter the search results, however, it does appear that she is working on some major food entertainment projects that are worthy of this article. I also took a look at her presence on YouTube and noted that she has over 130k subscribers and her show appears to be the most watched youtube cooking show (based on stats provided by VidStatsx.com), although I could not confirm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.20.224.10 (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be documented by reliable sources to be notable. And that source you gave has one bit of coverage about her making a dessert. We need significant coverage to satisfy the guidelines. Till 05:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree with Till I Go Home and see that there are lots of credible references, newspapers etc. that were updated to this article making this person and the article very notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebobbymiller (talk • contribs) 16:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC) — Thebobbymiller (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Care to list some? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Laura Vitale is currently working with Electus to launch the first ORIGINAL YouTube Cooking Channel (funded by Google. She has signed on with other celebrity chefs including Duff Goldman and Chris Cosentino both of which are former Food Network personalities getting away from TV and starting a digital channel with her [32] watch her interview with Duff Goldman discussing the new venture. I really have a hard time understanding why people discredit individuals who make careers on YouTube (such as Laura Vitale) when clearly they are working on the same exact projects as personalities that migrated FROM TV to the internet to work with her. The first episode of her YouTube Original show aired This Morning on the official HUNGRY channel [33]. This channel is being run by Bruce Seidel [34] as mentioned here in the press release, the former VP of programming at Food Network (which I believe makes Laura very notable). She was also one of the YouTube NextChefs (as mentioned in the forbes.com article referenced in the Wikipedia article about her). She was selected by the YouTube Next Lab and Audience Development Group late last year as one of YouTube's top culinary personalities. These are powerful people in the food/entertainment industry who are working with and recognizing Laura, which makes her worthy of being recognized by this community as well. She is also part of 'Recipe Rehab' Season 1 (another ORIGINAL YouTube web series) funded by Google and produced by EveryDay Health and Trium Entertainment [35] where she competes against former food network chefs such as Jill Davie. Laura has been an integral part of the launch of two out of 100 of the new premium original channels, if you are not familiar with this initiative, it's a huge deal that Google has invested $300M into [36]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.165.57 (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with the poster directly above this post, I've contributed to this article in the past and believe Laura is very notable as she has appeared in various news articles, press releases and has worked alongside various main stream personalities - not to mention she is a powerful food personality on the internet, perhaps the biggest I'm aware of (and I follow them all). I also agree that discrediting someone for being a 'youtube star' is doing a disservice to wikipedia. Television is not the only mainstream anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.184.212.3 (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are editors unfamiliar with the discussion here at articles for deletion. As some guidance, the key issue is whether the subject meets notability; notability in this case is not the simple dictionary definition, but rather represents Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines which must be met in order for there to be an article. This is not a judgment on the subject's accomplishments or abilities. Note that Youtube, Facebook, Myspace, most blogs, and press releases are not considered to be reliable sources for the purposes of meeting inclusion guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Perhaps the correct thing to do here is note that she is NOT a chef and should be removed from the American Chefs category (she is not described in her article as a chef) but perhaps the article should be updated to describe her as a 'YouTube Personality' and cooking show host as she is certainly notable in that space and she is a cooking show host of various cooking shows for multiple entities on YouTube. There are several YouTube personalities listed on Wikipedia, as should be the case considering that they are very well-known for what they do - most of them are comedians or 'entertainers'. 166.20.224.11 (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Noting that she is not a chef, and reclassifying her as a Youtube personality fails to address the main issue of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:31, 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, -Scottywong | squeal _ 17:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article links to coverage she gets in Forbes. [37] Other bits mentioning here here and there add to her notability. Dream Focus 18:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The Forbes bit is hardly significant coverage. It consists of simply two questions asked of the subject with no other text. -- Whpq (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You don't need to drag things out to a long interview. Far more meaning in a compressed one. The fact they felt the person notable enough to cover at all is what matters. Dream Focus 22:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Two questions doe snot constitute "Significant" coverage which is part of the notability criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 09:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - How can someone build an article with a source containing two questions? Seriously. Not all Youtube personalities are notable. Till 04:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Till I go home - I understand that you don't think YouTube personalities are notable, however, I think Laura has done a much better job at making a name for herself than most YouTube personalities listed on Wikipedia (who made their name dropping the F Bomb 5 times a minute). Anyhow, I live in the area where The Daily Journal newspaper is distributed and I'm sure I can get my hands on some of the papers in print (that are mentioned in the Wiki article you are trying to delete). I can scan them and send them to you (how would you like them delivered) You can also purchase them for about $3 each Example [38]. Unless of course you don't think that printed papers are notable enough to be considered sources of credible information. I would also like to note that she was on Basil Magazine's radio talk show today [39], but I'm not sure if you consider radio to be credible either (although I'm sure it is for many other Wikipedia articles out there). And if that's not enough, tune into Daybreak USA tomorrow morning to listen to her live interview (NATIONALLY SYNDICATED / 75 markets) on a radio talk show that truly believes she is notable enough to interview [40]. I'm not sure how, by Wikipedia standards, someone can not be notable, but yet national newspapers (forbes) and radio consider them to be not to mention local coverage. I'm sure I can dig up an article in the South Jersey Magazine about her too (again, does printed material count?). I'm not sure where you're from, but in South Jersey she's a very well known food writer and internet star. Let me know if you consider printed material to be credible and I will gladly hunt some of these down. 68.34.240.116 (talk) 03:36, 3 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) 08:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm currently not seeing the significant coverage in independent secondary sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Despite the cries of WP:LOTSOFSOURCES above, the only source I see that comes even remotely close to significant in terms of meeting our notability guidelines is the Forbes article, and she receives only minor mention in that, as one of fifteen cooks mentioned (an interviewer asks here two rather banal questions, which she very briefly answers). The rest of the sources provided and available online are trivial, tangential, or routine mentions, and even taken together don't add up to much. On a scale from 1 to 10 with Jamie Oliver being a 10, she rates about a 0.06 in terms of notability based on the reliable sources available. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but only time will tell. As for now, clearly fails out notability guidelines. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Forbes piece doesn't quite cut it. No significant coverage found via Google web, news, books, and scholar searches. Fails WP:GNG MisterUnit (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivial mentions does not WP:GNG make. GregJackP Boomer! 03:03, 14 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HLD Club[edit]

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

A CSD was declined. Fails to meet criteria at WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet any notability requirements; I also don't see any proper sources out there to further develop the article into anything beyond stub. Matt Deres (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets notability requirements; additional proper independent sources added to further develop article beyond a stub. RobinHood99 (talk) 09:11, 20 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, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article doesn't seem to have much to do with the club per se. Is it possible this material should be renamed under, say, the name of the dancer(s) involved? Right now it seems to be a kind of WP:COATRACK that promotes the club, whose notability is not obvious. Ubelowme (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A link has been added to the existing Wikipedia Strip Club article section on Top Clubs -

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strip_clubs#Top_clubs One major men's portal rated the HLD Club as the No. 1 club in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobinHood99 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 23 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, v/r - T P 18:27, 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:29, 6 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} 05:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AtomPHP[edit]

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

The topic has very few search results and tone is promotional. Makecat _Talk 08:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It has no sources. (WP:SOURCE) Does not seem notable, (WP:NOTE), is somewhat bias (WP:NPOV) and there really isn't much information on the page and if it isn't notable enough there really can't be much added to the page. Ziiike (talk) 02:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure spam. Unless we really want a Wikipedia page saying things like "Atom focuses on running ridiculously fast" and "leaving the rest of fun stuff up to you and your favorite libraries." Kill it quick. --MelanieN (talk) 22:43, 13 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sblounskched![edit]

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

A one off joke from the Homestar Runner website that has absolutely zero notability whatsoever. There are no reliable sources for this at all. The only source provided in the article is a wiki, which of course, is not a reliable source. The article was PRODed, as it should have been, but the article creator removed the PROD, for no real reason that I can discern. Rorshacma (talk) 05:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my initial PROD and nominator's comments. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 12:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't even call this prime redirect material. tutterMouse (talk) 12:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 01:14, 8 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Dauplaise[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet the notability guideline for politicians or the general notability guideline (possibly WP:TOOSOON), no obvious target to which to redirect (contested prod) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. The user name of the article's creator suggests a COI. Location (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.156.237 (talk • contribs) 2012-07-04 18:40:52

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage in independent sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 13:21, 8 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 Withdrawn. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Francis Heimbold[edit]

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

I originally prodded this with a rationale of "Does not seem to be separately notable. Only sources found were directly tied to work in Dispatch. I can't find any verification that Untold was actually released at all, much less via Hollywood Records." An IP deprodded with a link to Amazon, which is not a reliable source.

The only proof of him being signed to Hollywood Records is a Wayback Machine link to a promotional picture hosted on Geocities, which is also not a reliable source. Heimbold's solo work was released independently on a non-notable label, and I could not find any reviews of the albums, nor any significant third party coverage about his own work — just stuff he did in Dispatch. He does not seem to be independently notable, and should be deleted or redirected. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Depending on the outcome of the AfD for Woodriver Bandits, may be notable per WP:MUSIC criterion 6. But don't assume he's automatically notable that way: this criterion for notability is a bit circular, as the bands may only be notable through having notable members. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Woodriver Bandits was successfully deleted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:40, 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, Sandstein 05:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've incorporated several references into the article. Some of these are offline and/or require subscription, including pieces in The Washington Post, Boston Globe, and Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. With significant coverage for his solo works in multiple independent reliable sources, the subject meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 18:32, 6 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 valid policy backing those requesting to keep this BLP. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 20:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Cook[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'd originally merged this into the article for The Game since that's predominantly what he's known for. That has been contested by another user and the article was restored by them. I can't find a lot of reliable sources that show that he has notability outside of the book. There was an article put out by his college about past alumni, but predominantly the breadth of coverage has been in relation to his time spent with Strauss. If this is unsuitable as a redirect to the article about the book, then it should just be deleted. There's no independence from the book and his company Real Social Dynamics doesn't seem to have notability either. I'm bringing this to AfD because I wanted a wider spread of opinions and since there's been concern that redirecting wasn't a good idea, if Cook has no notability then the page should be deleted. The previous AfD in 2008's keep arguments mostly centered around the coverage Cook got in relation to The Game and that he'd published a few books. The one previous to that ended as a redirect to his company, which ended up being deleted due to a lack of notability. There's no independent notability here. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to sound like I'm drinking haterade, just that Cook/Durden has no independent notability and if his name can't serve as a redirect to The Game, then we need to establish whether or not he has the independent notability to have an article of his own. The article for Mystery ended up getting deleted and he was far better known as a PUA than Durden was.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage in rather reliable sources listed in the "Further Reading" section, including "The art of seduction" in The Queen University's The Queen's Journal and "The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists" (in which he is mentioned as "Tyler Durden", which is his pen name). The Queen's Journal article is clearly significant coverage of Owen Cook, and The Game has very extensive coverage. If you read the game, you would know that Cook's pseudonym is mentioned on more than SIXTY pages, which is a lot. Owen Cook deserves an independent article, rather than a redirect to his dating advice company, or a merge to The Game. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 06:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, that's in relation to the book. What we need to find out is that if Cook/Durden has any notability outside of that. Would he still be notable if we were to ignore that he was heavily mentioned in the book? For example, when it comes to characters in novels, movies, and comics having their own pages, we have to look to see if the character is notable outside of the book series. A good example of a character that has independent notability would be Harry Potter, while a character that doesn't have independent notability would be the any given puppet from the Puppet Master series. The same thing goes for real, actual living people. (The same basic standards of notability apply here.) There's a good many people (authors included) who are not notable outside of their own works, companies, and whatnot. I'm suggesting that while Cook/Durden has been mentioned heavily in the book, that doesn't mean that he has notability outside of it. It just means that he was mentioned heavily in the book. As far as the college article, some might argue that it's not exactly an independent source, but more importantly: if this is the only article that really focuses on Cook/Durden as an individual outside of his Game notability, then that's not enough of a depth of coverage to merit his own article. Just because a person is mentioned in a book does not mean that it gives them notability. It can help push towards notability independent of the subject, but does not guarantee it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And as far as the further reading goes, most of it seems to be in relation to the book. Since none of them seem to direct to an actual article, we have no way of knowing if the articles actually focus on Cook or if they're just about the PUA community in general. Further reading doesn't always focus on the individual and does not always equal to sources that show notability. If you can prove that these articles provide in-depth focus on Cook/Durden, then that'd help the case but it's just as likely that they're just general articles to provide a broader perspective on the idea of pick up artists and the dating schools.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found copies of some of the FR sources on Cook/Durden's website, which sort of confirms that these were almost all sources that don't really help show independent notability for him. [41]

“Mastering The Game": This is mostly about one guy going to one of the Manhattan locations for Durden's company. It doesn't go in-depth about Durden and he's more of a brief mention. At the very most this could be used to help show notability for the company, but it's not really showing notability for Durden.
“School For Seduction”: This one doesn't even mention Durden, just a class at another branch of the company.
“Men Paying To Learn To Be Appealing ”: Again, doesn't mention Durden at all under either name.

The further reading stories seem to be more about the company and the PUA community and classes in general, so if you could find copies of these stories that aren't on primary sources (such as Durden's website) to prove that they're written the way they're written, it could help show notability for the company. (Many times people quote articles as they are, but it's also rather common for articles to be edited when the subject posts them on their own website. It's a common practice, which is why we can't use Durden's website as a source backing these up. It'd only be usable as a primary source at best.) However, you'd also have to show that there was a depth of coverage, meaning that even if you have a flurry of articles that show up within a short period of time, if the only coverage is within a 3-4 month period then that might not show enough notability for the company since then it'd be going up against the standards of WP:CORP.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment Well then, how bout this link? [42] It should be reliable, considering that DSR is one of the largest databases for dating advice for men, right? There's also a Times article mentioning Cook in a few sentences. I still stand my case for the Cook article to be kept, as there are adequate citations to meet GNG. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 06:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Large websites doesn't always guarantee that it's a reliable source. For example, IMDb isn't usable as a source despite it being such a large and well-used website. Part of this is due to anyone being able to add info, but there's other factors in this as well. What concerns me is that we don't entirely know their vetting process as far as information verification goes. It helps a lot that they have a staff that is supposed to quality check the information given, but that doesn't automatically guarantee that it's something that Wikipedia would consider reliable. My gut reaction is to say no, but I'm going to run this by the reliable sources noticeboard to see what others have to say. Again, being a big or long running site doesn't always mean that it'll be considered reliable. It might just end up that it's a long running and big site. Even if this is considered to be reliable, that still means that we only have two sources that talk about Cook outside of the context of The Game and show any individual notability for him. However I will point out that if this is considered to be a reliable source then this review paired with the other source and the news articles under further reading could be enough to start an article on Love Systems. (Providing we find copies of the further reading articles to prove that what has been pasted on LS's website is what was actually written, that is.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update. I asked, and the consensus was that it wasn't usable as a reliable source because it appears to be mostly information provided by Cook (or someone who works for him or is otherwise affiliated with him) and would be a WP:SPS. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Dating_Skills_Review_reliable.3F Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Of the two references cited, The Game is a primary source, thus cannot contribute to notability, as per WP:BASIC. The futher reading section seems irrelevant, per the above criticism. Autarch (talk) 20:14, 22 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, Davewild (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep natable as per above, the game itself is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellstarr (talk • contribs) 20:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The book the Game is notable, yes, but is Owen Cook notable outside of his relation to the book? What we're asking here is if Cook has individual notability. Notability is not inherited, so you need to show that he's notable on his own right.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 01:47, 29 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, Sandstein 05:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to meet the criteria.Hairy poker monster (talk) 08:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of his coverage has been in the context of the book, outside of which he has no notability. The "further reading" sections in the article are more about the program he started with others than about him, with some of the coverage not even really mentioning him at all beyond a brief mention. I'm not adverse to starting an article about the company, but we don't start articles on people unless they've had extensive coverage about them over a long period of time. Cook has not received that. He got a brief smattering of news articles about him during the Game's initial publication, but very little attention beyond that. The only person from the Game that even remotely comes close to justifying an article based on them was Mystery (having made a business, several books, and hosting a TV show), and even he didn't have enough coverage to show that he warranted an article and he got far more coverage than Cook got. Most of the keep votes seem to stem from Cook's association with The Game and some almost fall into the WP:ILIKEIT category. Cook is just not notable outside of The Game. The small amount of coverage he received was as a result of The Game and was only during a brief point in time. There was no lasting coverage. Look at the article as it is now: the only two sources we have are comprised of an article from Cook's university and The Game. The Game can and should be seen as a primary source, so all we have left is the newspaper article to show that Cook has individual notability. You need to see if Cook is notable outside of his association with The Game, and he fails it. Maybe he'll get more coverage once the movie comes out, but we can't justify keeping an article on the basis that he may one day get this coverage. That's total WP:CRYSTAL. The guy just doesn't have any notability outside of Strauss's The Game. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO states "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." There's been one news story that's actually been about Cook and not about his business. The other articles have been predominantly about his business, with the focus actually being more on the idea of teaching the art of the pickup than anything else. Like I said, these articles could be used to help form an article about the business, assuming you could find where the articles weren't all written during a short time period (a depth of coverage over a longer time period). I have no problem with an article being written about Cook's business, with his name being a redirect for that. I don't necessarily think that there might be enough out there for his business to where it'd be a sustainable article, but I've no problem with someone trying. I just don't think there's enough notability for an article on Cook himself.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we were to see The Game as a non-primary source, that's still only two sources. However, because Cook gave Strauss so much input on the dating world in general and other things, it's hard to see it as anything but a primary source and primary sources cannot be used to show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP

He has notability not only over the blogospher but on youtube as well. His company is one of the few financial stable and succesfull Seduction Based firms in existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.232.142 (talk) 05:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, being popular in the blogging or youtube world does not translate into Wikipedia notability unless the blogs or youtube videos are by non-involved and notable people who are considered to be reliable sources/authorities per Wikipedia policy. Also, having a successful business does not give notability. It makes it more likely, but that in itself is not notability. If that was the case, there would be a flood of various businessmen and businesses that would have articles.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If they are writing about his book and toss in a few nuggets about his life, you can't dismiss that reliable source biographical information as counting towards WP:GNG merely because the primary motive was to write about his book. Of course, if the bio info is appearing in his book, then that doesn't count toward WP:GNG because it isn't independent of Cook. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:40, 14 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. per WP:CSD#G12 and per WP:SNOW. JohnCD (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of media markets and college football[edit]

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

This is cruft in its purest form: a list of Nielsen Media Research designated market areas coupled with the largest college football programs in each DMA, or the largest schools in each DMA if none sponsors football. Why should we care? The page history and link at the end suggests it has something to do with college football on television, but the page does nothing to illuminate us on the subject (not that it could, given how important cable television is to televised college football these days and how little media market actually has to do with college football); it is just an indiscriminate list, and not remotely encyclopedic.

Oh, and as if that wasn't enough, Wikipedia received a DMCA takedown notice four years ago forcing us to stop using Nielsen's DMAs, and while the numerous templates the article links to are still based on DMAs without actually acknowledging as such, which I'm guessing is okay, and I can see why this article has flown under the radar for so long, I see no reason why this article's explicit use of Nielsen's rankings and numerous direct references to Nielsen DMAs would in any way be kosher. But if this article were forced to stop using Nielsen's DMAs, it would become even more pointless and unencyclopedic, as though it wasn't enough already. (Note: Both WP:CFB and WP:TVS have been informed of this AfD.) Morgan Wick (talk) 05:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the OTRS case cited disallowing us from utilizing Nielsen's proprietary DMA's, and also, the simple fact that college football teams don't even care about "media markets", "DMA's" or per-market deals in the first place, because their first focus is getting on an ESPN, CBS Sports Network or Fox Sports Net nationally, and they never want to confine themselves to an arbitrary market area. Also indiscriminate (for instance in Milwaukee there is zero demand to watch Carroll College or Lakeland College's football teams except on public access, and the Rochester Institute of Technology doesn't even field a football team in the first place. Also, Chicago is definitely Notre Dame territory by far, Cleveland rarely enjoys Akron games when Ohio State is much bigger, and Detroit certainly has a Michigan State fanbase, something completely ignored by this criteria). Third, conferences and networks are the ones who determine what team airs when and where (like the Big Ten Conference and their network), and the only limit they ever use is by team popularity at the most, and at the least, ESPN determines airings by cable provider and zip code, not DMA criteria. Nate • (chatter) 06:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per both rationales presented above. -AllisonFoley (talk) 06:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: DMA listings are not allowed per a DMCA Takedown Notice from Nielsen Media Research and OTRS ticket #2008091610055854. The page should deleted posthaste. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for every reason stated above. Mdak06 (talk) 11:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How do you put a G12 notice on here to speedy delete, if you don't have a URL to OTRS ticket #2008091610055854? Roodog2k (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I G12'd it for you with the OTRS ticket URL link. For future reference, it would be this link but you just change the ticket number at the end to whatever the actual ticket number is (the one I linked to is the one in question). It doesn't give you anything but a sign-in screen, but that would be the working link if you were an OTRS member. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced cross-referencing of college teams to market area. The grouping appears to be WP:OR.—Bagumba (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; we can't even use DMAs to begin with, and college team fanbases don't exactly correlate with market definitions anyhow. To say nothing of those schools with no football teams… and the lone reference is a DMA list that obviously has nothing to do with college football, which may as well put this list dangerously close to (if not outright in) original research territory anyhow. Outside of the DMAs, little effort is made to connect this to college football on television… and even if you took all of those issues away, we're not an indiscriminate collection of information. There seems to be more wrong with this list than not… --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:22, 7 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) KTC (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TAROM Flight 3107[edit]

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

Not notable accident. A write off but at most it deserves a mention in airline and airport articles. WP:NOTNEWS applies. ...William 13:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 13:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. ...William 13:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 13:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The accident is notable because it was caused by an external cause, it had been covered by media, the plane was written-off, it was a scheduled flight. Not every day planes struck an obstacle on the runway causing them to overrun it and end up as scrap. (Gabinho^>:) 13:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Delete as not notable for a stand-alone article, may be worth a mention in related list articles. MilborneOne (talk) 19:03, 29 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, Sandstein 05:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes GNG, airframe was written off. Cause is sufficiently rare enough to add weight to the case for keepig. Mjroots (talk) 14:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Also please note that the article includes two sources from non-airline-industry mass media sources — the Ziare.com story (in Romanian) reporting comments by the pilot, and also a story from the South African news source News24 (which I added myself just now). — Rich wales 01:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG, multiple sources indicating notability of the incident/accident... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:52, 10 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SmartDefrag[edit]

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

Non-notable small piece of software. The only sources I can find are database style or download links, and so fails WP:GNG. Also fails WP:Notability (software) as it's not significant in it's field. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A cNet review does not grant any notability. Minor freeware application that has no specific notability or grounds for inclusion as either an article, or on the list of defrag software (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added more references.

A Google search for "smartdefrag blog -softonic -cnet".^[1] returns some 210,000 results from a number of different sources and I believe it should be enough to meet both WP:GNG and WP:Notability (software) criteria; also, the article has now no less reliable sources than Defraggler's one so, if these are not enough, Defraggler should be AfD too (Nothing against Defraggler, it's a good tool; just for example! :) ).

Regarding its being "not significant" or "minor", I am currently testing a number of different defragmenting tools and I do believe it is no less noteworthy of other tools listed in List of defragmentation software, offering a combination of features not present in any of the other products.

It's only MHO and, of course, it might be considered original research, but consulting third-party sources the facts should be clear. I think also that the policy "no original research" relative to the SW might be revised in particular for freeware or trialware because, with respect to the SW features, there is no more reliable source than the SW itself: to examine directly the SW is much more effective than any other source analysis. --Parsec09 (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're right, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS might just apply to Defraggler too :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good free software. I vote to keep also. I have installed this program on many users computers and it helps a lot. It has scheduled defrags and automatic an auto-defrag mode that turns on depending on a slider for user inactivity. It is ture that it also server IOBIT as a source of free advertising since some may decide to buy their other products, but it is a good free program nonetheless.--Solarjdp69 (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC) — Solarjdp69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 14:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

Please read WP:N for what actually constitutes notability. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though I might be considered an inclusionist: even if Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, not a directory neither a paper encyclopedia, WP is indeed full of lists (such as the list of Interstate Highways in Ohio, to name one) and often they are indeed useful, especially in the case of lists of products from which you want to choose one. You might look on google, and scan a list of a few million repeated and often inappropriate elements, or use one of the facets of WP to examine a list of some tens of "notable" elements with their description and references, and I see nothing wrong with that use of WP.--Parsec09 (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about a list, we're talking about a stand-alone article. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basalisk, I'm sorry but I can't understand what you mean. I took other articles from List of defragmentation software as example to write mine, and it seems to me that it is now not less notable than others. May I ask you what you intend?--Parsec09 (talk) 10:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parsec, this is the third time this is being pointed out to you, but your argument basically consists of "there are other articles about much less notable subjects, so this one must be allowed too". This isn't a valid argument. Just because there are other similar articles that doesn't make this subject notable. We're considering the notability of this subject on its own merits, not in comparison to others. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:39, 25 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:20, 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, Sandstein 05:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reviews [43] - detailed, [44] - questioning integrity of this one, because the user reviews don't match the magazine - but its there, [45], tons more I found. Despite the claims of SPAs User:Parsec09 and User:Solarjdp69, I am not finding this "good free software", but I am finding it notible. Turlo Lomon (talk) 18:15, 8 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.—Kww(talk) 13:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Skeptoid[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:WEB notability and does not have independent reliable sources. Article was PRODed too early during article creation in 2008, and has been tagged for needing better references since April 2011. Breno ^talk 03:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 20:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There is some coverage in the google news archive [46] and google books [47], perhaps enough for WP:GNG, maybe not. I think merge is the best step forward as there are sources mention Skeptoid in association with the host. If the content can be improved it could possibly be split off at that point. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Although I think it should be considered notable, most of the sources that I find are only borderline WP:RS. Skeptoid is a go-to site for many writers who are looking for a skeptic's input on pop phenomena but that could be represented by merging this content into a section redirect on Dunning's page.Allecher (talk) 01:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the recent updates to the page I would like to change my vote to a full Keep. Allecher (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Agree with the above. And to specify, Brian Dunning (skeptic) is the merge target. --S. Rich (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC) PS: I have cut&pasted most of the material into Dunning's article. Merger accomplished -- if skeptical, please compare :-) . 03:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that merger, with a redirect, preserves the richly sourced content. Indeed, the Skeptoid article material is (now) already in Dunning's article. Separate articles only weakens both of them. A combined article is stronger. --S. Rich (talk) 19:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject appears notable and content is richly sourced. "Merge" recommendations don't make much sense... merge with WHAT? Belchfire (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They recommend merging with Brian Dunning. City Of Silver 18:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I think merge is the best step forward as there are sources mention Skeptoid in association with the host." "...that could be represented by merging this content into a section redirect on Dunning's page." "And to specify, Brian Dunning (skeptic) is the merge target." Gee, I don't have any idea where they're suggesting this be merged... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The podcast is popular, award winning, and has generated a book (plus three additional, self-published books.) It's been mentioned on Slate.com and Discovery.com. It seems noteworthy enough to warrant its own Wikipedia page.Dustinlull (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Dustinlull has done some updating on the page the last day or so. It would not take much more to change my previous Merge vote into a full-fledged "Keep". Why are we in a hurry to delete this one, anyway? Allecher (talk) 03:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To Brian Dunning (skeptic) as the current coverage is not enough to justify an independent article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There has been improvement already in the last few days. Seems notable for own page. Also would like to see Brian Dunning (skeptic) become the default page for the name Brian Dunning. No idea how to do that myself. The current default got 263 hits for the month of June. Brian Dunning (skeptic) got 3,207 views for that same period. Sgerbic (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certain blogs have reached a level of notability that they become references or social sources themselves. Pharyngula and snopes are two of the most notable. Moreover, Skeptoid's Alexa rank is in the 100,000 range, which places it in the top 0.02% of websites worldwide. Maybe not Wikipedia level, but that's at the top of skeptical science worldwide. It is one of the go to websites for numerous skeptical writers. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gets mentioned in notable places, as Dustinlull has said, and won a notable award. Dream Focus 18:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Brian Dunning (author). Even after improvements still barely passes WP:WEB.--Otterathome (talk) 19:15, 12 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:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fakhriya Abdel Karim[edit]

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

imdb doesn't know her, no notability proven with credible sources التاريخ معلم (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There seems to be few notable sources. There is an extremely small mention here and nothing else. SwisterTwister talk 03:12, 29 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, →TSU ^tp* 14:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the existence of the obituary by AP alone suggests that it is verifiable. Someone could help to dig deeper through the news databases. - Mailer Diablo 02:15, 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, →B music ian 03:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I suspect most sources are likely to be in Arabic, not English, and those in a Roman alphabet might spell her name differently or use what the article identifies as her "known professionally" name. Morgan Wick (talk) 05:51, 6 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leah Kauffman[edit]

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

Delete - non-notable internet performer. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:ENT. SplashScreen (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable in any sense. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. The given sources are not independent reliable sources. --Artene50 (talk) 00:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep As well as the ABC News article, I found articles in TechPresident and New York Magazine. --Ritchie333 (talk) 13:28, 25 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, →TSU ^tp* 14:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, verifiable as per sources provided by Ritchie333. - Mailer Diablo 02:13, 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, →B music ian 02:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Sources are pretty lame, but meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 02:57, 6 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} 05:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Denmark-related articles[edit]

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

Similar pages to this one have been deleted recently. This page is not a thorough index of Denmark-related articles, since there are less than 40 article links, and there has no sign of expansion. Templates such as Template:Denmark topics already serve the purpose of this page and are used on appropriate articles and the Outline of Denmark article already provides a summary of Denmark in a factfile form, rendering this article redundant. The only substantial article linking here is the Denmark article, and that includes that template mentioned above.

It's also worth noting that this article was viewed just 412 times last month, with an average of 15 views daily, so it hasn't been of much interest. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 16:12, 29 June 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 June 29. Snotbot t • c » 16:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep – This is a discriminate list article, and per WP:NOTDUP, "It is neither improper nor uncommon to simultaneously have a category, a list, and a navigation template which all cover the same topic. These redundant systems of organizing information are considered to be complementary, not inappropriately duplicative." Also, WP:IMPERFECT (Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required) is applicable in this case. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I've significantly expanded the article since the time of it's post here at AfD. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:03, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should keep this article, but I wonder whether its title should be changed to "List of Denmark-related articles" which would make it more consistent with other articles in Wikipedia. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A little known fact about Wikipedia: Like other encyclopaedias it has an index. It's at Portal:Contents/Indexes, and this page is linked from it. Uncle G (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, a portal that indexes index articles! Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:59, 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, →B music ian 02:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the nom does not really give any reasons, other than it is obscure and there was some other unknown precedent. I need to be convinced that this is truly duplicative and wasteful of bytes. Bearian (talk) 18:30, 10 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. Whether to redirect is an editorial decision. Sandstein 07:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KDQT[edit]

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

Doesn't establish notability per WP:GNG, should be merged or deleted. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 17:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Doesn't seem to pass WP:N Relatively minor station. --Artene50 (talk) 03:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep no one seems to have made any effort yet to find sources, but a merge to Redding, California may be in order. I am of the opinion that radio and TV stations that actually transmitted should be entitled to an article. But that is a bit outside the scope of this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Network One or to List of Network One affiliates (where this station is already listed). --MelanieN (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think redirect is the way to go. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 16:01, 3 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, →B music ian 02:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, do not redirect FCC call letters from defunct stations can be reassigned. In the future, this call could be assigned to a TV or radio station.Roodog2k (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this seems to be one of those obscure stations that nobody watched, and while the presumption of notability for broadcast stations works just fine for larger stations, it may not hold much weight for a low-power station with few references that aren't from the FCC. That only indicates paper existence… but the lone reference on the entire page is a search.com page that states right at the bottom, in the fine print, that it is merely a version of our own List of Network One affiliates. It goes without saying that we shouldn't use our mirrors and forks as references. (Oh, and according to the FCC, its call letters were actually K46DQ… and officially it never made it past construction permit stage…) How many people even care that channel 46 in Redding, California was anything other than the current facility on the channel, a KUCO-LP repeater that has nothing to do with "KDQT"/K46DQ? (And I too generally prefer to have articles on actually-extant stations than not, but the sources have to be there first…) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect I cannot seem to trace any history of this station at all with my Highbeam account either under KDQT or K46DQ, and going by the history of the replacement WB affiliate KIWB (The CW Plus) before it's redirection in October 2007 to KHSL-TV as subchannel 12.2, even if this station was a WB affiliate it was a short period of time, only as much as a year going by this source (PDF, pg. 14) (up to September 1998 when the WB 100+ cable channels launched), and since it didn't keep the affiliation, ripe with technical errors, low ratings, zero cable reception, and terrible surrounding programming which made a cable channel launch almost compulsory in Redding to get any kind of audience. Generally, being associated with Network One also shamed your station to no cable reception and only curiousity-seeking ratings, and likely K46DQ, if it programmed any local shows, did only paid time stuff. A second source from the same source cited for WB affiliation above said it was gone by May 1999 (pg. 12). So we have likely a five year station which never got off the ground outside of automated programming from Network One and was under perpetual construction permits until the WB going cable made launching an OTA WB affiliate on a small translator which only gets 10% of the market silly. A clear case of a station treated as a hobby by its owner, and never a serious effort to do much more than that, which KUCO jumped on and got the translator for a pittance. Might be worth a short sentence in that article with these sources, but not a redirect. Nate • (chatter) 05:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Network One affiliates. Redirect can always be changed if the callsign is reassigned, but not redirecting because it might is WP:CRYSTAL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:42, 14 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. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Hashim[edit]

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

no notability based on reliable sources, imdb does not know "famous" movie "16 hours in Baghdad" التاريخ معلم (talk) 19:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be hoax as why would an arab film festival be held in Rotterdam?Seasider91 (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it would be pointless to hold an "arab film festival" in your town, apparently. Anarchangel (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 22 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and send for cleanup. The prose needs to be rewritten, but otherwise the sources provided on the bottom of the article adds up. - Mailer Diablo 02:08, 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, →B music ian 02:50, 6 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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anais Catala[edit]

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

fake? not listed at Miss Earth 2007 التاريخ معلم (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's a link which seems to indicate it's not fake. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/may/04/beautifuliraq JoelWhy? talk 13:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whilst not a fake she is only semi pro and not a miss earth SF so not notable ps don't you hate edit conflicts? This has happened twice now, 3rd time lucky in posting? Seasider91 (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not convinced she was involved in Miss Earth - she features on unofficial lists like www.starmometer.com/2007/06/12/miss-earth-on-track-to-be-the-most-participated-pageant-in-history/ but the Guardian article only says they hoped she would be there. I did consider merging to Miss Earth 2007 but that's no good if she wasn't there. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:46, 22 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:22, 29 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, →B music ian 02:49, 6 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 to Bangkok. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Square Monorail[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This failed proposal, like dozens of other transit system plans which made a few news stories and later vaporised, is unlikely to have any lasting importance, and does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Latest mention in news sources I could find was this article (in Thai) from 19 April 2011, which describes how the project was meeting difficulties and was unlikely to be able to continue. Paul_012 (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I'd feel more comfortable voting to delete if we actually had a source saying it was canceled. I couldn't find any either. We might compress this article into a sentence at Bangkok#Rail systems. --BDD (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Bangkok#Rail systems, until and unless it can be confirmed as a viable project still. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:44, 27 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, Davewild (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Has construction began on this monorail? - Mailer Diablo 01:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can determine, no. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then it's a delete. A passing mention on Bangkok#Rail systems will suffice. - Mailer Diablo 11:56, 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, →B music ian 02:49, 6 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) 12:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darren LaCroix[edit]

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

Spammy self-promotional article of non-notable speaker. A couple brief mentions in mainstream newspaper articles, but most of the sources are press releases or personal websites. —Chowbok ☠ 19:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Yes, it is not written in a formal tone, but it does have ample reliable sources. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and send for cleanup, notability was asserted, the prose just needs to be reworked to conform to our article standards. - Mailer Diablo 01:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – AFD is not cleanup. As Electriccatfish2 pointed above, multiple reliable sources are available. — Bill william compton^Talk 13:55, 8 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, →B music ian 02:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that the article was originally frought with promotion and hyperbole, but also agree that such is quite often addressable through regular editing... so I performed some of the required cleanup.[48]. Article is now much beter and presented in a neutral and encyclopedic manner. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:02, 10 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tanker boot[edit]

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

Long-unreferenced article about item of combat gear. The term appears not to be the official name of any item of clothing in any military in the world (at least not the is apparent from the web, anyway), but there are a number of commercial sellers of items with this name, including some that are clearly not the item described here. The only good looking ref I can see in the first dozen pages of google books is [49] which I don't have access to the text of (there are many, many, many passing mentions of course). Most of the contributors to the page are IPs delivering what appears to be first-hard knowledge of footwear known by them by this name. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 02:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It didn't take but a couple Google searches to confirm this really is the correct name for a particular type of boot, that the term is well-known (it even appears in literature, e.g., here) and does in fact refer to a boot with the characteristics described, including straps rather than laces. I agree with the nom the article lacks sources but that is not a reason to delete if sources exist. I saw enough to convince me they do. Msnicki (talk) 02:32, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That URL isn't showing me any text. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know why. It's a Google Books result and it works for me through Chrome, IE and FF. It should display a page out of Surviving the Reich with the passage, "While I was sitting on the floor, savoring my meal, a tall German soldier came and stood next to me. I stand six feet three inches, and he must have been about that height, too. He placed his foot next to my tanker boot, and seeing that it was his size, he ordered me to remove my boots." (emphasis added) Msnicki (talk) 08:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - User:Uncle G/On common Google Books mistakes will tell you why. Uncle G (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think that's it. I wasn't giving a link to a Google search, which could be different for different people (because of the way Google localizes results and changes them over time), but rather, a link to a particular result, which hasn't changed. That should be the same for everyone if they can read it at all. I'm suspicious that a more likely explanation may be (given the lack of specifics of what Stuartyeates saw instead of the intended result) that Google may blocking some pages in some countries for copyright or other reasons. (Stuartyeates, I notice you're very interested in topics related to New Zealand. Do you live there? I'm in the US.) In support of that, I notice that while the link still works for me when I click it directly, it does not work through an anonymizer, instead displaying the message, "You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book." Msnicki (talk) 16:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I just pointed you to a page that told you precisely that. Uncle G (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see that I missed your discussion of copyright issues, further down your page. The top part seems to focus more on search results being different, which is obviously not what's going on. Perhaps you might consider making that point more clearly earlier on. Msnicki (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are now two good sources. I feel strongly that additional sources for this CAN BE found, eventually, which satisfies WP:V. The article is quite well written. The "Lore" section is obviously summarized from somewhere, but as so often happens, newbies do all that work of summary, but leave no citation (sigh). Ironically, had they copied it, we would have an easier time tracking down where it came from. That is one of the reasons I find copyvio deletions so irksome; the 'professionals' at WP only bother to delete stuff that they have the skill and sources to make additions with. Anarchangel (talk) 17:06, 30 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, →B music ian 02:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, crosses the bar for verifiability. Article definitely could use more sources. - Mailer Diablo 03:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs more sources, but it certainly exists, is verifiable, and shows up on the prohibited footwear list for Air Force ROTC cadets. Trivia, but may indicate notability. Intothat darkness 17:18, 6 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) 12:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mullion F.C.[edit]

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

Club has never played in the FA Cup or FA Vase. The club has also never played at level 10. The club has played at level 11; the South Western League, which was at step 11 when they played in it. The league has since combined with the Devon League and been officially designated a step 10 league. However, before this merger, the league was step 11. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 21:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 21:42, 29 June 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 June 29. Snotbot t • c » 21:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 22:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Delusion - the South Western League was at Level 10 when they played in it, as the Conference was only one league at the time. Eldumpo (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Fair enough, thanks for pointing that out. Either way, members of that league were not eligible to play in the FA Cup. The current level 10 criteria is based entirely on the current set-up whereby teams at level 10 can take part in the FA Cup. My point is that if there were a Wikiproject Football consensus on the cut-off level for English football prior to the creation of Conference North and South, it would have been at level 9. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 23:45, 4 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, →B music ian 02:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence the article meets GNG. However, to pick up on Delusion's last post, it is incorrect to say that SWL members were ineligible to play in the FA Cup. Falmouth Town played in the FA Cup when in the same league as Mullion. We should move away from this vague 'Level 10 is acceptable' criteria, without sound evidence. Eldumpo (talk) 09:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails generally agreed criteria of Step 6 or above and FA Cup or FA Vase. Number 5 7 13:00, 11 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. Article creator has requested deletion/redirection, no keep votes SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Convexity risk[edit]

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

This article came to my attention because it is listed at Copyright problems. However, rather than address the copyright issues, which might entail a rewrite, I think it would be better to delete the article. My rationale has four aspects:

WP:NOT#DICT This is Wikipedia not Wiktionary, and the article consists solely of two sentences purporting to define a financial term
It is stolen: See convexity risk
It is wrong. Despite being stolen from a business directory, it isn't even correct. While it does have something to do with yields, it isn't a probability, and the definition covers a broad range of activity, not all of which is precisely convexity risk.
Already covered. Although not referenced, the article Bond convexity covers the topic in an more encyclopediac manner. (Arguably convexity risk is a broader term than bond convexity, but the broader term is better covered in Convexity (finance), while this definition is more narrowly related to fixed income securities.) SPhilbrick (Talk) 23:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That, and chapter 4 of ISBN 9781883249632, make a fairly good argument for zapping this and redirecting it to bond convexity. Uncle G (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Uncle G. - Mailer Diablo 01:41, 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, →B music ian 02:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to bond convexity. Redundant and incomplete, as per nom. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I created this article and all of you have made good arguments for deletion. Redirecting to convexity (finance) makes sense. Statoman71 (talk) 01:52, 8 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) 12:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Randall (actor)[edit]

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

Contested prod. Actor. Only one minor role and a few non-specific ones are asserted in the article, and the only reference is an IMDB entry. Google News Archives returns stuff about several namesakes, but nothing of interest. ~~Delete.~~ change to Neutral in light of provided reference, but per WP:NOTINHERITED, it's not sufficient for a full withdrawal. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable. Article is obviously poor but articles such as his wife's obituary[50] show that he was a major star on 1950s British television. Tassedethe (talk) 03:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IMDB entry has 21 parts, some of them significant. PatGallacher (talk) 08:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep From the ex-wife's obituary and some Google reading, would have to say starring in Joan and Leslie would make him notable. Most other parts look to be minor. He did do theatre in his later years and earlier years. It wasn't West End, but did get newspaper write ups. He and his ex-wife also got newspaper notices in Australia for their failed TV series. Bgwhite (talk) 22:58, 6 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 Withdrawn by nominator. I misread the infobox at the Envigado article; thought they played in the 3rd division, not the 1st. Sorry everyone. (non-admin closure) Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jhon Cordoba[edit]

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

Hasn't played any games in a fully professional league, and so fails WP:FOOTYN. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He has played in the Colombian top flight, which is listed and sourced as fully pro at WP:FPL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask where you read that? According to the article he hasn't actually played for Jaguares yet, and his previous club was in the 3rd division. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - According to the El Tiempo article I added, he's already scored 12 goals for Envigado in a fully-pro league. He's getting significant attention from national Colombian media. I need to look further into whether he actually signed for Jaguares. Jogurney (talk) 18:20, 6 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Santo, Sam and Ed's Cup Fever![edit]

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

Contested PROD. This article has two references, neither of which establish any form of notability. It was a temporary TV show for the 2010 FIFA World Cup, and this article should be just as temporary. – Pee Jay 00:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Pee Jay 00:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This show might have had a limited run but it was the precursor for the regular series Santo, Sam and Ed’s Sports Fever!. There are many TV series which last one season or have a limited number of episodes/shows which have their own article. This show is no different. J Bar (talk) 01:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But where are the sources to show its actual notability? As an example of a show that only ran for one season, Firefly has loads; this one does not. – Pee Jay 07:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Santo, Sam and Ed’s Sports Fever!, a parent article. GiantSnowman 19:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it's the other way round. "Sports Fever!" is a spinoff of "Cup Fever!". Jenks24 (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 19:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From WP:TVSERIES: "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations. It aired nationally in Australia, and I've added an ref from a major newspaper that covers it in depth. The-Pope (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:TVSERIES and The-Pope. Jenks24 (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article passes WP:TVSERIES. The article could have some more sources though. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I second a lot of the comments made so far. Some TV series have a wikipedia article for each episode, so there is no need to delete an article that covers a whole TV series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Religious Burp (talk • contribs) 23:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Also of note is that it's a project by Working Dog, who are a fairly notable group in Australia. So basically one person who hasn't heard of the show is suggesting the show isn't notable and should be delated while many more are saying it is definitely worth keeping. So why is it that this article is still up for deletion???? Religious Burp (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because now that the discussion has started, it has to run its course. Furthermore, if an article is undersourced, how is anyone in Australia supposed to know how notable the programme is, let alone someone halfway across the globe? This is why we have requirements that articles be properly sourced (and I note there are still far too few sources to determine notability); after all, WP:TVSERIES is only a general guideline; although it may pass WP:TVSERIES, just because a programme has been aired nationally does not mean that it is guaranteed to be notable. – Pee Jay 15:25, 9 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wong Fu Productions videography[edit]

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

List of YouTube videos, few if any of which are actually notable. Anything salvageable from here should be merged into the main company article; the rest is unsourced (and unsourceable, to anything but primary sources) trivia. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge notable. They are a production company, that has made some big projects, and these should all be mentioned, just like a production company for traditional media. Several of these works are notable in themselves, like Agents of Secret Stuff, which looks like it will be sticking around now. But we don't need a list of Wong Fu Weekends, and this trivial nature. I think that once it is trimmed down to their notable works, it can fit on the main article. 117Avenue (talk) 04:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The few that are notable should already be on the main page, and the rest are hard to verify. As this is a simple list and nothing more, is any attribution really needed that's worth a merge instead of mere deletion? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The team has created a number of notable works. Their main article page is not a dumping ground for details of specific releases, just as James Cameron has his James Cameron filmography. I really don't understand why there's such widespread opposition to writing about YouTube users who are at least as notable as many film producers. The mere fact that they produce their content for YouTube does not make them less legitimate. As an encyclopedia it is not our job to call any works "trivial." CaseyPenk (talk) 03:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that every entry at James Cameron filmography is linked, and everything at that list is notable itself for an article, things like "Hugger" and "We're on a Tank! Pt 1/2" are not. 117Avenue (talk) 04:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the article on Wong Fu. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 08:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Merge: Notable production company, but Wong Fu Weekends isn't really needed. Zappa O Mati 02:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not Merge. None of this content is covered by any indepedant sources, so fails WP:NOTABILITY.
Do not Merge to main article because the GAR correctly determined it shouldn't be added. I avoided such a list because, as stated in the last paragraph of "Notable productions", Wong Fu has released over 100 short films. I have only mentioned the most significant ones..--Otterathome (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otter. I'm not seeing the potential for merge. Anything notable looks already covered. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:20, 9 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.