< 11 June	13 June >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is legitimate disagreement here on whether sources published by Paizo are sufficiently independent. Since there is no consensus for either side of the debate, the closure here is accordingly.

I will make a note about the nominator's statement further down in the debate: "Big Mac's comment is not based on any existing WP policy and is thus to be excluded from the final conclusion of this AfD":

As a rule, I don't discard or exclude any good faith contribution to an AFD, even if it is misguided. Rather, I assume that everyone supporting a certain outcome will endorse not only their own, but also the arguments that others have presented that support their position. As such, I look for the best arguments that have been presented on either side, and then assess what level of support they have. Sometimes one side has made no good arguments whatsoever, but this is not one of those cases. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article about a creature from the Dungeons and Dragons game doesn't meet the General Notability Guideline in that the subject has not received significant coverage (ie. more than trivial mentions) in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Indeed, the article uses exclusively primary sources directly affiliated with the subject: publications and core rulebooks from TSR and Wizards of the Coast, the official D&D publishers; or Pathfinder, a D&D "spin-off" game created by Paizo Publishing (publisher of two official D&D magazines) and using modified D&D rules under licence from Wizards of the Coast.

Obviously this D&D creature has no notability (as Wikipedia defines it) and the article should be deleted.

For those trying to find sources, I can only stress the importance of independence (which "excludes works produced by those affiliated with" D&D or its creator, for example, guidebooks from Bastion Press provinding supplementary material to the D&D rulebooks, under WotC's d20 licencing, are not independent) and significant content (WP:GNG provides an example: "The one sentence mention [...] of the band Three Blind Mice ("In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice.") is plainly trivial."). Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing independently notable here. I rolled the dice for a saving throw, but it came up snake eyes. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment obviously no notability? Really? Then why was the result "no consensus" last time round? Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 01:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe because the closer forgot that AfDs =/= vote ? But if you doubt this creature is obviously non-notable, then why is there no significant coverage from independent secondary sources in the article ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That the arguments of the 'delete' side were not strong enough for the result to be 'delete' is a more likely explanation for the previous no consensus result than incompetence on the part of the closing admin. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously not, since the article sourcing is entirely primary, which is a violation of the GNG, delete arguments aére stroing enough, the only way to explain such a result is head count.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The admin who closed the last AfD for this article as "No consensus" was CBDunkerson. You could ask him yourself why he made that close. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to resurrect the 1st AfD is pointless, this one is enough to deal with the article. It's sad for you it isn't going the way you want but per WP:DPAFD, renominations are allowed and it does seem people here feel the previous AfD wasn't satisfying. If my nomination wasn't strong enough, then I'm sure you would have found policy-based arguments to counter it. Unfortunately the only support I see for the article is based on deliberate ignorance of evidence and a reversal of the burden of evidence. I think you should just accept the way WP works and not try to circumvent the current discussion by clinging to the previous closure.Folken de Fanel (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sad for me? I beg your pardon? I think the article should be kept, but it's not "sad for me" if it's deleted. It would be too bad for the encyclopedia, but I don't care on a personal level; I'd shrug. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an additional note, it's silly to reduce the issue of whether the article should be kept or not to what I am capable of arguing. I'm sure that other users - like BOZ or Jclemens - could do a much better job of arguing keep than I could. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- There already exists a lamia in mythology from which the D&D creature is obviously derived, this should just be a footnote in the pop culture section of that page. I'm going to repeat the argument I made over at this nom. Delete per WP:BADIDEA, "Almost everything on this page made it here because somebody managed to come up with some new bad idea that had not previously been anticipated... In general, 'that is a terrible idea' is always sufficient grounds to avoid doing something, provided there is a good reason that the idea is terrible." Looking at WP:NOT, even if this specific case is not directly addressed, it is very similar in kind to WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:GAMEGUIDE, WP:NOTMANUAL, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, etc. WP:NOT should not have to anticipate every bad idea for inclusion that is out there. Do we need a Wikipedia:Poképrosal for D&D monsters? --Joshuaism (talk) 02:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the vast majority of these WP:VAGUEWAVEs are not at all related to this discussion. WP:GAMEGUIDE specifically encourages individually notable game content; since that is what is under discussion here, it is of no particular help to either outcome. Likewise, WP:INDISCRIMINATE says nothing relevant about fictional elements like this. Jclemens (talk) 04:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:INDISCRIMINATE introduces WP:N, which is a relevant issue here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand some editors may see my recomendation as some kind of VAGUEWAVE, but I do believe that BADIDEA does apply and it helps to look at similar guidelines to gather an understanding of why BADIDEA applies. WP:GAMEGUIDE states, "avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts, unless these are notable in their own right", these D&D monster articles are concepts that may not even justify a list let alone stand-alone articles. Personally I think a list of D&D monsters grouped by D&D edition is just fine, but stand-alone articles for each one is overkill. Some editors may wish to engage in some wikilawyering and state that GAMEGUIDE doesn't apply to tabletop games because only video games are mentioned in the guideline, but this is a clear violation of the spirit of WP:NOT and the goal of keeping wikipedia encyclopedic. --Joshuaism (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Despite that fact that I have not voted to keep in this case, I'm going to take issue with this. WP:GAMEGUIDE appears to be written from the standpoint of the VG wikiproject scope guidelines, which is perfectly fair. But just because they decided to establish some guidelines doesn't mean that instantly all other sorts of games should be beholden to it. Further, I'll hold that tabletop role-playing games are functionally different in some aspects than video games that can impact their notability; tabletop games often devote copious amounts of prose to describing creatures, and as such should be regarded much as fiction elements in literature, like Cylons or Dragons. Finally, as you have quoted there, it's soft of pointless to try to apply this standard against individual creatures. It says: "unless these are notable in their own right"; WP:GNG should be the first thing we should be evaluating anyways, so that guideline is not too helpful here.-Sangrolu (talk) 20:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I disagree with the contention that independent sources such as Paizo's Pathfinder game are not independent, because it does come from a third-party source, and we do have a reference in the article to that game that was added during the prior AFD. I feel that this is sufficient enough to indicate that other sources probably exist. Merge may be a possibility regardless of the outcome here, but an appropriate page needs to be worked on. BOZ (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If redirected or merged, I would suggest that List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters would be a suitable target until we create a better one. BOZ (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Paizo book would be a third-party source for an article about Wizards of the Coast, but not an article about a Dungeons & Dragons topic. The key distinction is that it is not a specific publisher's version of the creature, it is a game system's version of a creature. Paizo's Pathfinder Bestiary is not an independent source any more than Wizards of the Coast's Monster Manual is. WotC and Paizo both publish books for the Dungeons and Dragons game system, and in fact the Paizo source is nothing more than a very slightly modified version of the Monster Manual's version per the OGL. A book for a game system is not independent of that game system. Paizo's Bestiary is written for the Dungeons & Dragons system (albeit a slightly modified version), so it can't be an independent source for a Dungeons & Dragons topic. - Sudo Ghost 06:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Paizo being an official publisher of D&D magazines, and Pathfinder being a game system licenced under WotC, is enough to prove that they are affiliated with the subject or its creator, are not independent and thus don't establish any notability for the creature. Besides, notability is based multiple independent sources, Pathfinder alone could not save this article, so I suggest BOZ to focus of finding real sources instead of trying to fight the obvious.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BOZ. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BOZ. Also note that per WP:ATD a merge must take precedence over a deletion if an appropriate target exists, which List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters does. Jclemens (talk) 04:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATD's merge section requires something with enough WP:WEIGHT to be merged, anything more than a brief sentence or two would be WP:UNDUE per the sources provided. - Sudo Ghost 06:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It requires no such thing, and it would be nonsensical if it did--that would require a bar to keep a bit of useful info in an appropriate merge target article that is entirely counterintuitive to building an encyclopedia of appropriate-sized articles. Jclemens (talk) 04:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If article content didn't require appropriate WP:WEIGHT, then there's nothing stopping an article from containing any and every last thing a publisher ever so much as mentioned. Wikipedia articles are summaries of an article subject, not every possible detail. Even in primary publication, a Lamia isn't a notable thing, just one of hundreds upon hundreds of entries in one of the Monster Manuals, and there's nothing showing that it's anything more than that. - Sudo Ghost 05:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read and internalize WP:NNC. Jclemens (talk) 07:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of Wikipedia's notability guideline. WP:NNC isn't refuting anything I've said, and clearly says due weight is what dictates content. This article has virtually no prominence, even within primary sources. WP:NNC is not free reign to put anything in an article just because it can be verified with a source, that's not what Wikipedia is for. - Sudo Ghost 07:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also failing to see where WP:ATD says a merge "must take precedence over a deletion if an appropriate target exists", WP:ATD says nothing even remotely similar to this. There are no requirements for when a merge would take place, that's what an AfD consensus is for. - Sudo Ghost 07:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Solved through regular editing" includes merging, which requires no tool use. WP:PRESERVE is also policy. Jclemens (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Tool use" is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with a merge being "required". WP:PRESERVE doesn't say a merge is required either, it says "Preserve appropriate content", which is something a discussion determines, a merge is only valid there if it is appropriate. It is a policy that requires something worth preserving, due weight is also needed there. Nothing "requires" a merge; the article has no weight in any sources, primary or otherwise. Unless weight can be established for the content, there is nothing to merge, let alone any policy saying something must be merged. - Sudo Ghost 05:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article lacks independent reliable sources. Paizo's Pathfinder books are for the Dungeons and Dragons game system, therefore a book written for that game system is not an independent source for something included in that game system. However, even assuming that this game book it independent of the game and writes about its own subject from a disinterested perspective, that still gives a single, very questionable independent source, an article needs more than that to establish any notability. - SudoGhost 06:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically Pathfinder system =/= D&D system, but the point remains that they're the same monster and both are WP:PRIMARYs for their own versions of it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not 100% what you're trying to say about their own versions of it. The player in me can probably go on and on about all of the differences between the two, but realistically, Pathfinder is the Dungeons & Dragons game system (as per the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game article and Paizo's own description), only with slightly tweaked rules for minor things (in the large scheme of a game system). If they technically aren't the same thing, then technically Pathfinder wouldn't be a valid source for establishing notability for the D&D version, because it wouldn't be the D&D version of the creature. Either it's the D&D version, within the scope of the article and therefore a non-independent source, or a different game system, and therefore not describing anything in the Dungeons & Dragons fantasy role-playing game, falling outside the scope of the article and cannot establish notability for something it isn't describing, but it can't be both independent and within the scope of the article, either way it can't give notability to the article, let alone enough notability by itself. - SudoGhost 15:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Er, that was my point. That technically Pathfinder isn't D&D, but also that neither is a secondary source for itself or the other. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, got confused with what you were trying to say I guess. - Sudo Ghost 04:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Has no sources that I can view as fully independent. Pathfinder is an odd case, but I think it's valid to say that such materials would, at minimum, have to provide analytic and evaluative content regarding the topic, rather than simply an adaptation thereof. —chaos5023 (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Lamia (mythology). There is a lot of overlap between the two entities and I think one more robust article is better than two. Lack of out-of-universe commentary make a merge a distinct compromise possibility as I think other fantasy entities are more likely to have commentary than this one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - While I wholly disagree with this conjectural notion of "NOTBESTIARY", and that WP:NOTMANUAL applies here, multiple reliable independent sources is still a requirement for WP:GNG. As discussed in the Ankheg article AfD #2, I don't find the PFSRD (and by extension, the PF Bestiary) as independent, as it's basically edited licensed WotC content. Now if you had all new material such as appears in the ecology books, that would be another matter. Even if you were to regard the PF Bestiary as independent, a single source is not sufficient for WP:GNG. So if the editors want to keep it, I'd admonish them to dig up more sources (if they exist.) - Sangrolu (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I do not accept the OP's assertion that independent sources that happen to be gaming products from other publishers are not valid. The adoption of the SRD by several other publishers (that have no legal connection with Wizards of the Coast) is a testament of how notable this game is. They have no obligation to use all of the monsters within the SRD, so use or non-use indicates notability on an individual level. Furthermore, the similarities differences between the legendary creature of the same name and its implementation in the world's most well known roleplaying game are culturally significant. People studying this legendary creature can compare this and the other article to separate legend and RPG fiction. With RPG culture overlapping into other areas, this sort of thing is important. Big Mac (talk) 08:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big Mac's comment is not based on any existing WP policy and is thus to be excluded from the final conclusion of this AfD. Being mentionned in another primary source is not a criteria of WP:GNG.
I also note you do not provide any reasonable argument for not accepting my assertion.
First, I'm not talking about "independent sources" (since there are none in this article). As I explain in my nomination, publisher Paizo and its game Pathfinder have a strong affiliation to D&D since Paizo was the publisher of two official D&D magazines, and as indicated in the various articles, core Paizo employees, after having been editor-in-chief of these official publications, became lead creative members of Pathfinder. Pathfinder itself uses a modified D&D system under licence from Wizards of the Coast and basically reuses D&D content under the said licence. No independence possible at this level, legal connexion to WotC undeniable.
Second, Pathfinder doesn't satify the GNG, which specifically asks for secondary sources ("Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability."). A proper secondary source makes "analytic or evaluative claim about a primary source". Pathfinder doesn't make provide any analytic on the D&D monster, it is just a work of fiction using a name in its gaming mechanism, the link is just the game rules, the fiction itself and thus is primary content. It's even more obvious as Pathfinder, under the d20 system, copies the D&D creature itself, reproduces the primary source.
Third, claiming that "the similarities differences between the legendary creature of the same name and its implementation in the world's most well known roleplaying game" are "culturally significant" without any source but your own faith in the statement, is WP:ILIKEIT. I certainly cannot see such content in the current article. If this is your argument for conservation, either it is an aberration, or it is a call to create this content. But you do not provide any source which would allow anyone to write it, meaning the content is not notable and could only be possible through WP:OR. You cannot qualify something as "culturally significant" if there are no source to back up this claim. Your comment is entirely groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignores content guidelines, and should not be, in any case, included in the final closure rationale.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Folken de Fanel, you can certainly argue why someone's comment is not based on guidelines, but it's not up to you to decide what is "to be excluded from the final conclusion of this AfD. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big Mac, nobody is arguing that the Pathfinder source is not independent of another publisher (WotC), and that doesn't matter. Pathfinder is not independent of the game system that it uses. This isn't Lamia (Wizards of the Coast), who the publisher is and is not independent of is irrelevant here. The Paizo Pathfinder book, like the WotC Monster Manual, is describing the subject in its own game system. However, if we pretend for a moment that Pathfinder isn't for the same game system, then yes it would be independent. However, it would then be describing a different version of this creature, and would be only tangibly related to this article, describing Lamia (Pathfinder), and affording no notability to Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons). It's either independent and not describing the Dungeons and Dragons creaure, or it is describing the Dungeons and Dragons creature and is therefore primary, since it's describing a creature within its own game system. Either way, it gives no notability to the article's subject. - Sudo Ghost 05:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are really no reliable sources for this that would help it satisfy the notability guidelines. The only one that could possibly count would be Pathfinder link (and Folken de Fanel makes a very strong argument as to why this isn't a purely secondary source). But even if it did count, articles are required to have multiple reliable sources. Pretty much everything else that talks about the D&D specific version of the monster are books directly related to D&D itself. There is already a section in the Lamia (mythology) article where it lists appearances of the creature in popular culture. Some of the info here could possibly be merged there, but that's about the extent of it. Rorshacma (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very minor fictional character with insufficient independent coverage for notability; a derivative RPG isn't independent coverage. Rates a mention in a much reduced "pop culture" section of the mythology article and in D&D monster lists, but that does not require a merger. Sandstein 05:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the only sources are in-universe than that's a pretty good indication that this isn't sufficiently independently sourced for an article and I'm with Sandstein that adding the required mentions in other articles does not need a merge. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to List of cities and towns in California. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Largest cities in california by acreage[edit]

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

A similar title already exists at List of largest California cities by area, which redirects to List of cities and towns in California. This simply ranks eight cities in a different way. Anyone searching for such a list would likely search by "area" rather than "acreage" and this article only provides redundant information rather than fulfilling a specific need under WP: List. Taroaldo (talk) 23:45, 12 June 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:MADEUP The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wagner Speed[edit]

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

Neologism, OR. See the end of the article and talk page that confirm this: something someone thought up two days about and decided to put on WP. Deprodded with extra confirmation that it's OR JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete internet search brings up no significant coverage of the idea.Seasider91 (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR and WP:COI. Author of article and primary source appear to be one and the same. DarkAudit (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly WP:OR--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 05:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Qwfp (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete. I don't think the COI issue is necessarily a problem but WP:NOR and WP:NFT are convincing enough, and the article explicitly states that this was original research made up in a day. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete anything created on "June 8, 2012" has no place here. Arjayay (talk) 19:29, 14 June 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. 'Quoth the Raven...' The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Through the Eyes of Ravens[edit]

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

A short story that doesn't seem to have any notability. It was published only in a minor anthology (that itself seems to be completely unnotable), and no reliable sources exist that talk about this story at all. Without a single source to establish notability, it fails the GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not even an assertion of notability, this borders on spam. Bearian (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage about this short story in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect if desired. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mojo storytelling[edit]

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

A neologism that seems to have been created and used by only a single individual. No reliable third party source exists at all that uses this phrase, and the few hits I got in reference to it was always used in conjunction with the author that made the phrase up. With no sources to show any kind of widespread use, it should be deleted per WP:NEO Rorshacma (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Joe R. Lansdale. As noted by the nominator, this phrase seems very associated with its creator but I could find nothing in the way of arm's-length reliable sources that indicate usage by anyone else for any other purpose. I think the redirect might potentially have some use, though. Ubelowme (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A term that only appears to be used by Joe R. Lansdale to describe his own work. I honestly don't see the need for this redirect, and will also point out that the term is currently not even mentioned in the Joe R. Lansdale article; a redirect there may leave a reader wondering why they are there. -- Whpq (talk) 22:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this seems to be a phrase "made up" for his own work CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 06:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Room 515[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable film created by a user (GGandUProductions (talk · contribs) who has edited two article and shares a name with the "film company" that created the film in question.

Films fails WP:GNG with no Google News search hits and no Google News Archive search hits in he first 5 pages of hits. Film also fails WP:MOVIE with no major distribution or major awards won. I haven't dealt with film notability extensively but after reading through WP:MOVIE and topics covered on WP:FILM, I see no other inclusion guidelines that would apply. OlYeller21^Talktome 22:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Was about to nominate myself, but you beat me to it. Vanity piece about an amateur film (basically a home video) which was only posted online (and only on the official website and youtube). No coverage by reliable third-party sources and so fails GNG. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 23:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as non-notable and promotional. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 00:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer! 02:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's just no notability to this student film and no sources that aren't primary or otherwise unusable.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of any independent coverage fails WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Not notable. Chiefly a promotional piece about a student film. If a student film ever wins an Academy Award, then it can be included. Taroaldo (talk) 20:14, 13 June 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} 23:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Thompson (footballer)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Little information and unsourced. PROD was contested as this concern had been addressed. However, Mr. Thompson has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league, meaning this article fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete at least until one first team apperance for Portsmouth, then can it be recreated.Seasider91 (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete copy of page saved and will be posted once appearance is made User:Kudoson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudosn (talk • contribs) 15:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until he plays for Portsmouth or moves to another pro club and plays there. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. --Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 11:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. →TSU ^tp* 06:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:HEY — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opera Management[edit]

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

Merge to Arts administration (due to Voceditenore addressing issues) ~~1. no indication of notability of this term 2. WP:COATRACK for book/advert/COI/SPA 3. refs 2 and 3 only tangentially related to term, so only a single source of an obscure book~~Widefox (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC) updated Widefox (talk) 08:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject of opera management (lower case) is a valid one and much has been written about the area, especially from an historical perspective. See for example these journal articles and these books. Having said that, this article, as it is currently written, is quite clearly a coatrack advertisement for one (extremely) non-notable book with a very limited and idiosyncratic scope. It's apparently published only in Greek, and searches on either the author's name, book title, or ISBN turn up nothing on WorldCat, Google Books, or even Amazon. I'm minded to completely rewrite the article with proper sources, and then see if it's worth keeping. However, Opera Management by Minoas Pytharoulakis will not figure amongst the sources, given the preposterous statement in the original version of the article:

The term firstly appeared and described in the international bibliography at 2011, in the nominated Greek book 'Opera Management'...

Voceditenore (talk) 06:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - either complete rewrite/rename or delete and independent article is good. I'm for latter, but not much difference really. Can I push you to come down one side? Widefox (talk) 10:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite (also move to Opera management). I've completely rewritten the article. At the moment, it's still just an introduction. I'll add more over the next couple of days, although I'll wait to see if the article is kept before carrying out the bulk of the expansion. Voceditenore (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera. Voceditenore (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Thanks to Voceditenore rewriting the article, the well-deserved reasons for this AfD have been addressed and rectified. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for rewriting. My concerns are fully addressed. Considering how niche this topic is, and its overlap with Arts administration , a merge would seem beneficial for both articles for now. Widefox (talk) 08:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Personally, I think a merge is premature at the moment, and would oppose that. It would sit oddly in Arts management as both articles are currently written and the way that I plan to develop the "Opera management" article which will have a distinctly historical perspective. Let me develop the article first and then we can revisit it in a couple weeks... if necessary. There's no reason why every relatively short "niche" topic under development needs to be immediately merged into a larger article. Once that happens, often the narrower topic simply languishes and the larger one becomes a dog's dinner. If/when the narrower article does become developed, then there's the whole palaver of de-merging. So why make extra work? Incidentally, I notice you've also put a "merge" tag on the article. You can't have simultaneous merge and and deletion discussions in two separate places. The AfD needs to be closed as either "Keep" (or "Merge") first. Voceditenore (talk) 09:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the merge tag from the article for now. It can be re-added once this AfD is closed one way or another, if necessary. Voceditenore (talk) 09:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note The version of the article which was nominated for deletion can be seen here. Voceditenore (talk) 09:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- being as I've changed opinion to merge due to your good efforts, the former article is gone, and as nobody now is asking for deletion, per WP:SNOWBALL I was moving the debate on with switching to merge topic. I wanted to be clear that you shouldn't hold back editing in case your effort is deleted.
  - If I've understood your plan, writing "Arts management" as a historical article would be undue weight for a still contemporary topic, and I'm not at all convinced that skipping a parent article from "arts management" to "management" is logical. Category:Opera managers is parented by Category:Arts managers. I don't want to pull apart a new article, but the external link you put in is for Arts management. Given the number of opera managers, it seems I was wrong about it being too niche. Does this convince you to reinstate the "arts management" link? Widefox (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can reinstate the link to Arts administration, although that article is a mess and no help to the reader of opera management. The two terms are often used interchangeably, but there's a subtle difference between "administration" and "management", especially as the terms are used today. Opera management does not always involve administering an institution, even now. The external link is original to the article. I left it in while the article is under construction because that site has links to abstracts of articles which are potentially pertinent to the subject of modern opera management. See [1]. But these issues would be more appropriately discussed at Talk:Opera management. Voceditenore (talk) 10:23, 18 June 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} 23:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of football clubs' appearances at the Millennium Stadium[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of statistics. Not supported by reliable sources. Original research. Cloudz 679 19:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz 679 19:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge with the main millenium stadium article.Seasider91 (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks a bit like Original Research, at least the table of each team's performances at the stadium. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that such a collection of stats has been collated in reliable sources. It is also unreferenced, and the title is factually incorrect, as it does not list all clubs that have played there. Eldumpo (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate list, nothing worth salvaging. Giant Snowman 21:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears totally trivial. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 21:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pointless trivia. What we have here amounts to List of football clubs who reached any cup or play-off final between 2001 and 2007, and when it is put like that you can clearly see how trivial it is........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless WP:LISTCRUFT. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:LISTCRUFT. Nothing notable about the list. →TSU ^tp* 06:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pointless trivia and WP:OR. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. -Scottywong | prattle _ 15:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sune Rose Wagner[edit]

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

Subject known stricly in his capacity as member of Raveonettes; article a stub, laking even elementary references. - The Gnome (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Psyched Up Janis appear to have been covered quite a bit in Denmark at least and released five albums on proper big record labels (e.g. Replay, Regal-Zonophone, EMI), so as a key member of two notable bands we should keep this. Being a stub isn't a problem. The lack of references can be fixed by a Google search and a few seconds editing. One would find e.g. this from Rolling Stone: "A former alt-rock star in Denmark with his first major band, Psyched Up Janis, Wagner...". --Michig (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC) He also released a solo album in 2008 which got plenty of coverage in Denmark, and I have now expanded the article and added sources, so none of the arguments for deletion hold water. --Michig (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- per expansion by Michig. The article is now referenced by substantial coverage in reliable sources, such as the multiple articles in Gaffa (essentially the Rolling Stone magazine of Scandinavia) -- meeting the criteria for WP:BAND. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 21:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE FOR CLOSURE -- nominator has withdrawn AFD with this edit. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 12:11, 15 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kings of the Severn[edit]

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

Entry for an award given for winning a race; the race itself has no Wiki entry. No sources in the entry, and I can't find any sources anywhere that mention this award, other than mirrors of this page, although the race itself does exist. Not notable or verifiable. Several early versions contain attacks or vandalism from the entry creator (e.g. this edit), possibly the whole thing is a hoax. Hairhorn (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find co coverage about the race in reliable sources which would be the proper spot for information about the award for winning such a race. -- Whpq (talk) 16:11, 7 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, —Hue Sat Lum 17:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could not find anything on a rowing prize, only a minor surfing competition. Bearian (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation if she makes the team — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy Baker[edit]

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

United States gymnast who fails to meet any of the criteria set by WP:NGYMNAST or WP:GNG. The Secret U.S. Classic is not the top level competition of women's gymnastics in the US. This athlete may be destined for great things, but not yet. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd have to keep if there were something imminent coming up that would indicate notability - a high profile spot on the Olympic team, for example. But there's no news coverage of any type, apart from what appear to be routine scores. Usual Caveats apply, however; if Baker does end up in a top-level competition, or on the olympic team, or what have you, an article may become appropriate (with sourcing!). UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:07, 6 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, —Hue Sat Lum 17:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Baker has passed another milestone, being named to the US Senior Women's team following the Visa Classic on June 10 (see article for citation). However this still doesn't guarantee her a spot on the US Olympic team; that won't be decided until July 1. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NGYMNASTICS and GNG. Certainly a promising performer and Olympic trials in next two weeks will be revealing as it regards notability. Userfying to pagecreator sandbox would be reasonable here, pending trials performance. BusterD (talk) 15:17, 19 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misawa Daichi[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Only graduated from design school in 2011. Only "award" is as a finalist (one of 12, beyond the 4 winners). Beyond one award reference, others are self-produced or just notice of school exhibition. No other independent RS. Fails WP:ARTIST. Michitaro (talk) 04:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The reference sources added do not constitute in-depth third-party coverage, and there is no evidence that this person passes the WP:ARTIST notability criteria. As per the nominator's comment, this does seem to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. --DAJF (talk) 11:55, 5 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, —Hue Sat Lum 17:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that the subject meets the WP:ARTIST criteria. AllyD (talk) 22:04, 12 June 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 Home Invasion (album). Drmies (talk) 18:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta Lotta Love[edit]

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

Does not pass NSONG — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Home Invasion (album). With releases by notable artists there is usually a target that makes a merge more appropriate than deletion, and in this case the basic information contained here can be merged to the article on the album that the single was taken from. --Michig (talk) 05:56, 30 May 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 5 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, —Hue Sat Lum 17:39, 12 June 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. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:29, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Belgium Olympic Team flag bearers[edit]

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

Same information is already on List of flag bearers for Belgium at the Olympics.

Be bold and redirect it. No need for an AfD. Lugnuts (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ... it's an option, but nothing links to it anyway. --Pelotas^talk^|^contribs 20:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 12 June 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 SNOW DELETE. Blatant, self-admitted synthesis and personal essay. JIP | Talk 19:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Laxity is the Cause of Poverty in Tanzania[edit]

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

This look like a WP:SYNTH, does not belong on wikipedia The Determinator p t c 16:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a hosting service for an essay. elektrik SHOOS (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above, Wikipedia doesn't host essays and also doesn't welcome original research. Just the wrong place for this, that's all. Ubelowme (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an opinion piece essay Dac04 (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. It's interesting but all original research. It is indeed an essay, and in addition the latter sections probably fall foul of WP:SOAP too. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - With all due respect to the copyright holder, "© C. Samali (June, 2012)"... Carrite (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTESSAY.--Chip123456 (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is starting to look like at WP:SNOW The Determinator p t c 19:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 12 June 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} 23:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy Rugg[edit]

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

No credible assertions of notability. A blogger (is anybody not a blogger these days?), and a radio presenter (not specified for whom). Claims that Rugg "worked for" various major publications, but this claim is not supported by citation, nor is the nature of the work made clear (was she the managing editor, or the mailroom worker?). Other claims to fame are similarly vague. The "presenter" gig on "Tafe Radio" appears significant until one discovers that Tafe Radio is the student-run radio station at Petersham College where students broadcast as part of their curriculum. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. The citations on the page make no mention of the individual. The West Street Journal and Tafe Radio appear to be student media. Article appears to be about a non-notable journalism student. Dac04 (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this AfD was started 14 minutes after the article's creation. If it doesn't fit any of the speedy deletion criteria and cites sources, perhaps it is worth waiting to see whether more reliable sources can be found or provided. §everal⇒|Times 17:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources about her do seem to be in very short supply. §everal⇒|Times 17:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would have nominated for speedy deletion, but given that sources were present, the speedy might well have been declined. (I've had it happen on all to many occasions that an editor will see sources and assume that a credible assertion of notability has been made without verifying the credibility of the sources.) Sometimes it's just easier to short cut the process and bring straight to AFD. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. The sources are just general links to website front pages and do not mention the subject, so I have removed them. I searched for sources, but can't find any reliable, non-trivial ones, and thus the subject fails the GNG. Since the sources were false I've nominated the article for speedy deletion under WP:A7 and we'll see. If that is declined then this AfD will take over. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are no sources contained within the article. Yamaguchi先生 21:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subject fails to cross the verifiability or notability thresholds. I declined the speedy request as an assertion of notability is made but am !voting delete because my search for sources failed to prove that assertion. (Also, her LinkedIn profile says she was in advertising, promotions, and sales while the Wikipedia article is written to imply that she was a journalist for these publications.) - Dravecky (talk) 22:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage in reliable sources. --99of9 (talk) 10:21, 18 June 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} 23:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Hood Athletic Football Club[edit]

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

Amateur club which has never played in the FA Cup or in the top 10 levels of the English football league system, the usual rule of thumb used by WP:FOOTY. DOesn't pass WP:GNG either -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not clear as to why you have said that my article does not pass WP:GNG given that I wrote the article using two different sources rather than just relying on a website devoted to the football club.(Rillington (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Note I think that should say "top 10 levels of the English football league system" or "7 steps of the National League System". -- KTC (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I am not at all familiar with the UK footbal divisions but the article states the club plays in the West Yorkshire League. This league has an article. Is the League itself notable? If it is, are the clubs that play in it notable? The league shows several teams with articles. Are any of these as notable (or not) as Robin Hood? Seems to me if one goes to AfD all of them should too. The teams are:

Guidance from people versant in UK League structure is required. -- Alexf^(talk) 17:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

West Yorkshire is at Level 11/12, which is notwhere near the bottom of the English football league system, which appears to go down to Level 24 (Level 21 for a top division), and all of them are blue link. But that's just the league itself and not the teams. For the teams (or footballer etc.), it should be noted the usual articles standard are whether they have ever played in a high enough level, and not where they are now. (This doesn't matter for Robin Hood AFC whose article suggest they've played on the same league its entire history. -- KTC (talk) 19:40, 4 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 4. Snotbot t • c » 17:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Westella & Willerby F.C. falls into the same category. League Octopus (League Octopus 17:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Comment: Westella shows in the Central Midlands Football League which is different but may have the same issue, with it and all its clubs. We need a review of this issue by people knowledgeable with UK Football. -- Alexf^(talk) 18:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For the record, both the CML and the WYL promote into the Northern Counties League as they are at the same level of the English footballing pyramid although the CML promotes more clubs into the NCEL than the WYL. To add one more point, I had intended to write articles for all the teams in the CML given that some teams already have articles, assuming there was enough material to source for information. However, since this discussion about deleting a WYL article, and now even a hint possibly questioning whether one of my CML articles should be deleted, I have refrained from writing any more articles as I'm not going to put in time to write articles only for people to suggest that they are deleted. Should it be decided to retain the Robin Hood FC article then I will look to complete the CML project whereas if it is decided to delete this, and any of my CML articles for that matter, then it is highly unlikely that I would make any further contributions to Wikipedia.(Rillington (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Four of the seven clubs mentioned above by Alexf and League Octopus either play in higher-level leagues but field their reserve teams in the WYL, or else have played in higher level leagues in previous seasons, so their situation is not the same as Robin Hood Athletic. Two of the seven are former WYL clubs who moved up to higher levels years ago. And Westella & Willerby aren't mentioned on the WYL article at all......?? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly new to editing and to producing articles and given that some CML clubs already had a wikipedia article, I had intended to complete the set assuming each club had a website. The reason I produced an article on Robin Hood FC was because there was already a link to the club's website and it seemed logical to put together a wikipedia article especially as one other team in the WYL already has a wikipedia article, as has a club playing in a neighbouring league, the Humber Premier League, which is actually one stage lower than both the CML and the WYL in the footballing pyramid. It would be very disappointing if the articles I have produced, and I did research them properly and included references, were to be deleted. In fact I wouldn't be inclined to make any further efforts to put in the effort to produce new articles, only to see them deleted.(Rillington (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - Don't take it personally as it has nothing to do with you or your abilities. We simply have to follow the rules. There are notability rules for footy articles. Because the article is not bad per se, and not obviously or blatantly non-notable, it has not gone to speedy deletion but to AfD so the community can comment. Please make your voice heard. Read the pertinent rules, linked in the comments here and make your comments based on policy. Don't despair. Many of us (myself included) have had articles in AfD or PROD at one time or another. Some stayed, some were deleted. That's the way Wikipedia works. -- Alexf^(talk) 01:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for that Alex. I'll try not to take it personally. I will start by conceding that the CML and the WYL is at level 11 so therefore it could be argued that all of my football articles should be deleted along with others already written which would leave the CML with some clubs having articles and others not which, looks rather odd and suggests the question to those who do not participate why some clubs have articles and others do not. All I wanted to do was to ensure that all the clubs in the CML, if possible, do have articles as the CML is a good standard and is a regional league rather than a local league and I was attempting to complete that task and have now put this task on hold. It is worth stating that some of the articles already there had featured clubs which had not previously been at level 10 and these had not been proposed for deletion although I see that an article for a HPL club, playing at level 12, has now been proposed for deletion. Frankly I think this uniform cut-off is tight and should be flexible to ensure that leagues do not have the situation whereby some clubs have articles and some do not. Finally, but equally important, surely people who make the effort to take time to produce articles should not see them deleted if they are factually accurate and contain material which is verifyable from elsewhere, and all my CML articles fit that criteria.(Rillington (talk) 00:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - My reference to Westella & Willerby was completely separate to matters raised by Alexf re the WYL. League Octopus (League Octopus 22:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:07, 5 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 | verbalize _ 16:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, hasn't played at a notable level. Giant Snowman 18:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it is inevitable that my article is going to be deleted, no matter what I might say in defence of retaining it, so maybe it's best to put me out of misery? I think this decision is at best tight and frankly really rather mean, especially given I'm a new contributor. Things like this shouldn't be so mandatory and if people are prepared to make the effort and spend the time in writing articles, this should be recognised. I now have to make the decision whether or not to complete the project I began last week to write articles for the clubs in the Central Midlands League. Right now, I'm not inclined to following this debate as to whether to delete my article about Robin Hood FC which, for the record, was researched properly. (Rillington (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - Lack of an appearance in the FA Cup and a general failure of GNG is enough for me. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone please explain to me why a properly researched article with references, which people want to delete, is a "failure of GNG"?(Rillington (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Comment - From WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". The article, as it stands, only has one external ref, to F.C.H.D. which is not even an article but a list pointing to some playing stats. The other is the club's own website. Not enough independent reliable sources. -- Alexf^(talk) 17:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that's really tight. As I said, I'm a new contributor to Wikipedia and would hope that I'd find encouragement and support and not to immediately find an article which I've taken the time to research and write being deleted just a few days after registering.(Rillington (talk) 09:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - I'm sorry, Rillington, but this club is not notable, and in my opinion we are already pretty flexible when it comes to English clubs, but stretching it longer then level 10 is a bit much. Also fails WP:GNG. Next time you write an article, you could check out if the club has played at level 10 before you start. Keep up the good work! ;) Mentoz86 (talk) 17:37, 19 June 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} 23:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cailyn Huston[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. A blogger and community organizer for a project conceived by someone else (Huston is mentioned at the project's site, but not in any of the project's news coverage). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. On the face of it, this is a blogger who was associated with a project that might be the subject of a Wikipedia article, but whatever notability is there is not inheritable. I tested the references and agree with the nominator; there is no assertion of notability and I found nothing to make me believe that there's anything to back up such an assertion. Ubelowme (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources listed within the article are not written about the subject being discussed for deletion, no assertion of notability is provided. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I contributed this entry, and I'm a little confused why she isn't considered notable enough. She is a blogger on her own personal blog (which I understand is not notable), but she's also a weekly contributor to a larger website where she has built a following. I added the information about her work with the Snail Mail My Email project because I was one of the volunteers who worked under her; she was very heavily involved in the project even though it was conceived by someone else. CleverLittleFox 15:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The criteria at WP:BIO are pretty clear. CleverLittleFox is invited to review them and point out how the subject specifically meets any of them. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:06, 13 June 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) —Hue Sat Lum 15:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Software system[edit]

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

Contested prod. Sat here unreferenced for years. The topic is arguably notable, but we have no article here to justify it. There's no content here beyond "Software systems are systems of software." There are now some references, but there was a time when an encyclopedia involved editorial work, more than just pasting string overlaps from Google. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — the article is referenced and the term is defined and used in standard software engineering textbooks like Ian Somerville's Software Engineering book (in Chapter 1). The term is also defined further in the overview of this article (read further than the first sentence!). — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Although maybe not that popular, the term is used in books and articles where software is seen as a component in systems engineering. There is also an award named after it, from the well known organisation Association for Computing Machinery: ACM Software System Award -- SchreyP ^(messages) 20:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'll be honest with you, I find the article difficult to understand so it's difficult for me to really assess what this concept means, but it's notable from what I gather. A citation from the ACM good enough for me. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify the nomination here: there's nothing wrong with the topic but the article still fails to convey any encyclopedic content sufficient to justify the expenditure of bytes on storing it. If we are to have any sense of quality in articles, we have to draw a line somewhere. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. My original prod rationale still stands: "It really is a synonym for software and should be redirected there. A merge has been proposed but there is nothing to merge in my opinion.". Sources only show that the term is used but not the correlation with systems theory/engineering or its difference with the simpler "software":

I don't have access to it as it is offline, but has the convenient title "What is software"?
No mention of systems theory/engineering in the "Home" and "About" pages of the Institute's website. Does not support the sentence.
Note the interposing and. Moreover, the link points to a list of publications without explaining anything.
Finally, the ACM Software System Award article supports my position so much it is nearly embarassing. Just follow every product wikilink and read the first sentence.

Disclaimer: I am a software developer. --M4gnum0n (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the correlation with systems theory/engineering is somewhat weak, but does exist. Some people support that, but not all software architects, etc. Yet it is a distinct concept from "software" itself. Think of a simple difference: the term "software" does not generally encompass the test suites that are used on it, interviews with end-users as they use it, etc. Those are not programs as such, but part of the bigger entity: the "software system". I have started touching it up, and added a reference for that statement. But one could write 20 pages on this really. History2007 (talk) 09:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are two possible, and exclusive, interpretations of "system" in this context: software and ancillaries (as you describe them), but also large networks of software components, where each component was developed independently. Where there is any sourcing in this article, it's referring to the second form. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps so, although I have seen wider use for the first case. And I added a first source for that. There are more that can be added. And what you said in effect suggests "distributed software system" as an issue. But in any case, both scenarios suggest a keep vote in my view. History2007 (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. M4gnum0n (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has improved slightly since the AfD nomination and even when it was nominated, it had a sufficient number of WP:RS to keep it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please note that notability has never been a problem with this article. See my original PROD reason. --M4gnum0n (talk) 07:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Jonathan Bowen. —Ruud 21:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Obviously meets WP:NOTE: just click on the books link at the top and you get over half a million results. This is a key term in computing. The article content is far from adequate, but the term needs an entry - I distinguished it from system software now. And I am sorry, but the argument regarding "the expenditure of bytes on storing it" should first apply to many long talk page threads that do not even pertain to article improvements. Disk space is almost free these days. I will try to touch it up a little, but believe me that it is a key concept in computing with many sources. History2007 (talk) 09:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article has been improved since nomination to address concerns. --Kvng (talk) 19:11, 18 June 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} 23:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Nolte[edit]

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

Barely a claim of true notability in this resume-like, near hagiography. No significant coverage in independent reliable sources able to be found. The-Pope (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Brushes with greatness does not establish notability. Sources are about the notable people he met, not the subject. DarkAudit (talk) 15:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This individual doesn't seem to meet WP:POLITICIAN, or have any other claim to meeting notability standards. There are a number of references I found that indicate that Mr. Nolte discovered the dead body of a member of the musical group Men At Work, and was interviewed about it, and that doesn't confer notability either. Ubelowme (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, regretfully. It seems like there should be significant coverage for someone like him (particularly for his five years on the Melbourne City Council), but all I could find at Google News Archive was a single incident, namely his peripheral connection with the death of Greg Ham. I considered a redirect to Melbourne City Council, but that link is simply a redirect to the City of Melbourne - and I notice that most of the current councillors do not have articles. So I think "delete" is the way to go. I am open to changing my mind if significant coverage can be found. --MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Puff peice by PR account. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Based on edit summaries, username Markstonepr quickly changes to username Markstone57, google search appears to result in Markstone Group, 54 Walsh St, West Melbourne VIC 3003, Australia, 03 93292777. No website. Timeshift (talk) 07:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. There are sources but doesn't quite give notability. Many facts are not sourced nor does look notable. It also fails WP:GNG. →TSU ^tp* 06:58, 19 June 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 Macro photography#35 mm equivalent magnification. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

35mm equivalent reproduction ratio[edit]

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

This article is on a concept or neologism of apparently insufficient notability. It should be covered in the article Macro photography instead of standalone. See discussion on its talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge to Macro photography, as nominator. The article has since been moved to 35 mm equivalent magnification, in spite of my advice to wait for the AfD to conclude. It's a better title, but no more notable. Dicklyon (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and merged a few paragraphs into Macro photography#35 mm equivalent magnification. So we just need to make it a redirect now. Dicklyon (talk) 05:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I consolidated the information that was merged since there was some duplication. I moved the crop factor chart to the article Crop factor. As the author of this article, I have no problem with it being deleted now that the information has been merged with other articles. Thanks for your assistance, Dicklyon. If you don't mind handling the redirect I would be very grateful. DSiegfried (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will do that if the closer of this AfD does not. Dicklyon (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AFD is a bit of a labyrinth of rules and process and can be confusing for those not familiar with it. Wikipedia:Guide to deletion provides some guidelines. The Closing Admin and other editors discussing this AFD should be aware that the article was moved from the original title, and that content has been merged elsewhere. -- Whpq (talk) 22:16, 18 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Fullbright[edit]

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

Appears to potentially be locally notable for his area, but I'm seeing nothing insofar as anything that meets general notability. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:22, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has had a recent review on national public radio about his current album, nationally notable enough to be reviewed on Fresh Air. http://www.npr.org/artists/153197900/john-fullbright Esdoss (talk) 06:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 29 May 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but add references. I found a Los Angeles Times and 2 National Public Radio stories[2],[3],[4] on John Fullbright. These are independent sources, thus fulfilling Wikipedia's music notability guideline. NJ Wine (talk)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 14:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for clean up, ample sources have been demonstrated which discuss this subject at length. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – In addition to the above, also has coverage in The Boston Globe [5]; meets WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:01, 15 June 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 1st_Cavalry_Division_(United_States)#Vietnam_.281st_Air_Cav.29. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1965 Fort Benning Mid-Air Helicopter Collision[edit]

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

Fails WP:AIRCRASH for Military accidents. Nobody notable on board. Crash was tragic but should be on list of military accidents only. ...William 13:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 13:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions. ...William 13:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -...William 13:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 13:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This would have been part of the 1st Cavalry Division's testing and training process before the unit deployed to Vietnam, possibly during an exercise (explaining the high losses...both Hueys would have been loaded). Not saying that should automatically make it notable, but just putting out some context for the crash. Intothatdarkness (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In my opinion (and no, I don't have to back it up by quoting anything, since AfDs are about opinions, so please don't witter on about me having to), 18 deaths is significant enough for an article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep- Would have have been the deadliest army/benning/military accident for some period on either side{cn}, no others on page compare; nothing in these to pass SOLDIER, but include two burials at Arlington: 1LT Donald E Spencer, (CWO) Dewey C Little, (WO) James L Mersman, (PFC) Jose H Garcia, (PFC) Daniel Odell Hilton, (SGT) Charles Edward Lewis, (SGT) Constancio Nacua. Dru of Id (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fort Benning#History. Can I say WP:NOTNEWS about something that's almost 50 years old? --BDD (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You could also merge to First Cavalry Division, since it's clearly related to their activation as an airmobile division. If the airmobile or Howze Board articles ever get up to scratch those might be viable options, too. It's more related to unit or concept history than it is Benning, IMO. Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Tragic but sadly WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, even with 18 dead, accident. In military training, unfortunatly, these things happen; the burials at Arlington are an interesting fact, but the fact some of the dead were buried there does not confer notability. Nothing about this article suggests that there is anything unique or encyclopedic about this accident; does not meet WP:AIRCRASH, no Wikinotable, either through WP:SOLDIER or generic WP:N people involved. No need to merge/redirect as there is nothing on this page referenced to reliable sources; can be found in RSes and added independently to the appropriate articles. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd disagree about notability in terms of the context of the times, but agree that this shouldn't stand on its own. Better to fold it into a division history article or something dealing with early airmobility. Sadly, most of the Wiki articles for this period aren't up to snuff. And there are RSs out there for this (Stanton's history of the 1st Cav mentions it, for one). Support Delete provided the information isn't lost. Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete military aircraft accidents are just not notable and nothing in this article raises the barrier for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? So, if a plane was to go down and kill a hundred soldiers, it wouldn't be notable, even if all those men and women were returning from an overseas deployment? By that logic, smaller accidents that we have here are somehow notable because they are civilians? That argument makes no sense, whatsoever. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it killed a hundred, it would very likely pass WP:GNG. This does not. And it does make sense for the simple fact that military planes crash more often. Two choppers collided...WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Airliner crashes...not so much. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Compared to the notability guidelines for aviation incidents, this far exceeds the minimum needed for basic notability. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way? No Wikinotable people killed, no WP:PERSISTENCE, no changes in procedures = fails. Hard. Even leaving WP:AIRCRASH OMG it's only an essay!! aside, this utterly fails the WP:GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - had this been a well-formed article I may have !voted differently. There is almost no useful info in the article, bar the fact the mid-air occurred and there were eighteen deaths. Such info can be adequately covered elsewhere as mentioned above. Mjroots (talk) 08:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to 1st Cavalry Division (United States)#Vietnam (1st Air Cav) assuming Intothatdarkness is correct. Otherwise merge to Fort Benning#History. It may not meet the requirements for a standalone article, but it certainly meets the requirement for a mention. If more sources can be found and the article could be built up, I would support later recreating it over the redirect. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of a Merge or redirect I support inclusion of this article over deleting it. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it utterly fails both the relevant essay (WP:AIRCRASH) and guideline (WP:GNG)? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is only an essay. GNG is an issue, which is why I support merging the article to some relevant topic. If faced with complete deletion with no coverage and retaining the article as is, I find deleting this with no coverage to hurt the encyclopedia and retaining the article as is being neutral in its effect on the encyclopedia. That being said, there are many events that do not appear to meet WP:GNG because they occurred prior to widespread usage of the internet. I am sure there would be coverage if this occurred in 2012. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOHARM (of course, WP:ATA is only an essay...). As for "If this occured in 2012", there would be coverage that fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look, my opinion on this matter is based on what is better for the encyclopedia. Your WP:NOHARM link isn't related to what I stated. I am saying it would harm the encyclopedia for this information not to be presented. I don't really care wear it is presented or how it is presented, so long as it is presented. If a merge outcome is ruled out, then it should be presented here. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My link to WP:NOHARM was in relation to your statement retaining the article as is being neutral in its effect on the encyclopedia - i.e. 'retaining it does no harm'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was one of a series of training crashes in the 1964-65 period, although the most costly. Had it happened the year before, it would have been very significant. Unfortunately, does not meet WP:PLANECRASH. Should not be merged with the 1st Cavalry Division, if only because the unit involved was the 11th Air Assault Division (Test), and not the 1st Cavalry Division! Could be moved to there though. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps someone should create an article on the training accidents during that period. The relevant accidents could all redirect to that page. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What about a merge/redirect to Bell UH-1 Iroquois#U.S. Army? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to either the regimental article or 1st Air Cavalry Division. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:31, 20 June 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} 23:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grosses Ritzhorn[edit]

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

Article about a mountain that doesn't seem to exist (and surely not in the Engelhörner as the article says). According to Swisstopo (online maps) there is simply no mountain named "Grosses Ritzhorn" in Switzerland. ZachG (Talk) 12:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It may exist, but fails verifiability. I've looked and cannot find any sources to confirm this mountain exists. -- Whpq (talk) 22:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable, based on a reasonable search of online sources. A few ghits, but they don't go anywhere but to mirrors of this pedia. This sandbox edit and this procedure lead me to believe this is a likely hoax. Closing admin might verify page creator here wrote both. BusterD (talk) 14:51, 19 June 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 red carded. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abikouyé Shakirou[edit]

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

Article created probably by his agent with a lot o of unsourced, likely false info. No evidences that he meet WP:NFOOTBALL Oleola (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I cannot find evidence that he has played in a FIFA "A" international for Benin, although he gets local press coverage for playing the qualifying rounds of the 2012 CAF Champions League with Tonnerre. I suspect the article will fail the general notability guideline and I cannot be certain it satisfies NSPORTS (he apparently played for Sharks F.C. in Nigeria, but I'm not sure it was at a fully-pro level). Jogurney (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if the article is kept, it should be moved to Shakirou Abikoyé according to the Beninese sources I've found above (as well as footballdatabase.eu and transfermarkt.com). Jogurney (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. --Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 11:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - He has definitely been called up to Benin's national team on several occassions but I can't tell if he's ever played. He's been getting called up since at least 2010 but again nothing indicating he's actually featured. TonyStarks (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL per Jogurney and TonyStarks' research. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:45, 19 June 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. Needs cleanup and a move — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vector (artiste)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable, fails WP:MUSICBIO even after rewrite following previous deletions. No coverage in WP:RS, no charted music, no gold records, no national/international tours that are covered, not on major/important indie label, not a notable ensemble, not a prominent rep of a notable style, no awards/nominations, no competition wins, not in rotation nationally, and not featured in a radio/TV broadcast segment. Probably WP:TOOSOON. GregJackP Boomer! 12:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - presently, the article has one reliable source from the Nigerian Compass newspaper.^[1] In your nomination rationale, you state that there is "no coverage in WP:RS". Clearly, with the article in the newspaper, which is a reliable source, this point in your nomination rationale, no longer holds true. Furthermore, concerning your statement that the subject of the BLP article is "not featured in radio/TV broadcast", the Nigerian Compass newspaper has something else to report, namely that Victor The Viper "...has become a known Rap artiste in Nigeria...", and "...his hit song, Angeli is still rocking the airwaves.". This proves that he is featured on radio/tv. You might want to please update these points in your nomination rationale? Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I stand by my nomination. The Nigerian Compass interview appears to be a blog, with (as of today) a total of 311 hits, written by an author whose link on the Compass website returns a 404 error - not found. As to the second, it was a paraphrase from the MusicBio standard, #12, which states "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network." As far as I can determine, he has not been so featured. Playtime is not the same as being a featured subject. I still believe that he is not notable, and does not meet the standard of WP:MUSICBIO. GregJackP Boomer! 02:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the official website of a Nigerian daily newspaper "a blog", and thereby refusing to accept Wikipedia's general acceptance of newspapers as reliable sources, has removed the basis on which reasonable discussions can take place. Thusly, there is no need for me to further this issue. Amsaim (talk) 08:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, perhaps I was not as clear as I should have been. The Compass is a newspaper and a reliable source. There has been discussion on the status of blogs which are run by newspapers - whether they are reliable sources or not. See WP:NEWSBLOG. In previous discussions on WP:RSN the key to whether a newsblog was reliable or not was dependent on whether the paper exercised editorial control / fact-checking on the blog and if you could show that the blog author was a professional journalist. In this specific instance I don't believe that it was, but as always, I am willing to be convinced that I was mistaken. Based on the additional 5 sources, it is clear that this is one of the cases that I was mistaken on the GNG of the subject of the article. I am willing to withdraw my nomination, but agree that it should be rewritten. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 11:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite - the article has been created by an inexperienced editor, who evidently did not acquaint herself/himself with Wikipedia's Basic Policies and Guidelines before writing the article. As a result of this, the article contains scores of unreliable sources. Yet, WP:NRVE stipulates that "...the absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable". The subject of the BLP article has received a fair amount of coverage in reliable sources from Nigerian daily newspapers, and from Nigerian weekly magazines.^[2]^[3] ThisDay calls him "...one of Nigeria’s fast rising rapper...".^[4] The Vanguard calls him "...one of the best underground rap artistes in Lagos...".^[5] The Punch reports, that Vector Tha Viper's latest single 'Angeli' "...is on heavy rotation...".^[6] This fulfills Point No. 11 of WP:MUSICBIO, which states that "...a musician may be notable if he has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.". With these reliable sources, WP:BASIC and WP:MUSICBIO are fulfilled, thus establishing notability. Amsaim (talk) 08:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^ Ogunade, Sunkanmi (10 March 2012). "My rap style is unique - Vector the Viper". Nigerian Compass. Retrieved 12 June 2012.
^ Onyekwena, Chiagoziem (19 October 2010). "Vector Ready To Infect Music Industry With 'State Of Surprise'". Nigerian Entertainment Today. Lagos, Nigeria. Retrieved 13 June 2012.
^ Alonge, Osagie (16 March 2012). "Hip-Hop Feud: Reminisce Battles Vector". Nigerian Entertainment Today. Lagos, Nigeria. Retrieved 13 June 2012.
^ "Stella Damasus Denies NDLEA Harassment". ThisDay. Lagos, Nigeria. 20 November 2011. Retrieved 13 June 2012.
^ "Vector debuts". The Vanguard. Lagos, Nigeria. 24 September 2011. Retrieved 13 June 2012.
^ Oyetayo, Adeshina (6 April 2012). "Waiting to excel". The Punch. Retrieved 13 June 2012.

Weak Keep Although this article may not meet WP:MUSICIAN, since there is a verifiable source, let's keep it and add tags to it for other editors to add in content that make it pass WP: MUSICIAN, as there probably is more content that can make the subject notable. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 20:41, 14 June 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. Article significantly improved, nomination withdrawn, consensus that notability now established. (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 10:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lifestyle X'nter[edit]

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

~~No indication of notability; Jakarta has something like 200 malls. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

It passes WP:GNG easily, and is notable for its conference/meeting facilities and wifi, which arnt in most malls. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No offense John, but many malls in Jakarta have wi-fi (at least the pricier ones do). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are a few malls with wifi throughout, but that is a distinguishing feature. Most of the malls here only have wifi provided by coffee shops; they dont have permanent high speed wifi provided throughout the mall by the building management. fX is not an average mall. In 2008, an in-depth article about the mall by Jakarta Post noted that it has "installed its own indoor slide, the third in the world after Austria and Israel".[6] John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG, is WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Crisco has good access to Indonesian sources and speaks the language, so I trust him that he can access sources that prove notability based on those sources. Jakarta Post article is nice but that is one. Nothing appears to make this particularly notable, and searching for it doesn't turn up answers. --LauraHale (talk) 05:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Keep: Enough sources added that demonstrate it appears to pass WP:GNG independent of event coverage. --LauraHale (talk) 23:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many more in-depth newspaper articles have been added to the Wikipedia article, and it is well over DYK size too. Perhaps Crisco and yourself might like to review and indicate whether you still believe the article fails WP:GNG. DYK that Wikipedia has more articles about shopping malls in Sydney (pop: 4.5m) than Indonesia (pop: 237m). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per consensus above ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:24, 20 June 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 close). Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabia women's national football team[edit]

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

The article has no meaning. The team has not yet played a match. That is to say that the team does not exist.--Uishaki (talk) 11:22, 12 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 12. Snotbot t • c » 11:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to meet WP:GNG. The topic is meaningful one even if the team has yet to play a match. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could rename to "Women's football in Saudi Arabia" if the title offends or confuses. The general topic appears notable, though. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and what a worthwhile article this is. I first thought to justify my opinion I might have to point out that WP:GNG is only a guideline and that "normally" does not mean the same as "always". However I see the article already has sufficient suitable references to confirm notability in the usual way (for example [7][8][9]). I agree a change of name might be helpful as well as better describing the present material but that is no reason at all for deletion. This article should definitely be kept. Thincat (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 16:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see where you're coming from, Uishaki. But this isn't just a group of mates who talk about forming a club someday; it's certainly more substantial than WP:CRYSTAL lays out. The topic sits at an interesting intersection of women's rights in Saudi Arabia and football in Saudi Arabia, and the amount of coverage already demonstrated on the article shows that we have WP:N even though there isn't an active team. --BDD (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - national team, has received plenty of coverage. Giant Snowman 18:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although Montenegro's team was deleted on a similar pretext, wrongly in my view. I wouldn't object to a rename as suggested by Colapeninsula, at least until they get round to playing a match. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 19:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Extensive sources exist on team's non-existence and the need for a team to actually exist. This topic is also getting a lot of coverage connected to Saudi Arabia's refusal to send women to the Olympics, the last country in the world to do so. There are also issues with the federation working to actively oppose measures that would allow for the creation of a team. --LauraHale (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete Wikipedia is not a place for speculation, the country of saudi arabia doesn't even allow women to practise sport yet, how long before a notable match is played? Seasider91 (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What speculation is found in the article? --LauraHale (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and WP:SNOW close. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly demonstrates enough coverage to warrant an article, though I'd agree that renaming to Women's football in Saudi Arabia might perhaps be more appropriate to the current situation. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is clearly demonstrated through WP:GNG. The team having yet to play a competitive match is irrelevant to WP guidelines. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep and rename to Women's football in Saudi Arabia. This topic passes WP:GNG; examples include [10], [11], [12].

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:03, 14 June 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) 08:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Wilson, Jr.[edit]

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

Declined speedy (and BLPPROD), article is about a race car driver who won rookie of the year in a non-notable stock car division. Sources check came up negative, no General Notability Guidelines passing for me. kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. If he's as good as the small amount of coverage available says he is, it won't be long before he makes his name in a more notable stock car division. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominated. He's competing in a circuit that is nowhere near WikiPedia's notability standards. PK T(alk) 17:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, has yet to compete in a professional series. Textbook case of WP:TOOSOON. When he makes a start in a NASCAR national touring series (Cup/N'wide/Truck), wins in ARCA, or finishes top-5 or so in points in a NASCAR regional series (or otherwise meets the WP:GNG, of course!), we'll see him here again. Until then, hasta la vista, baby. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NMOTORSPORT. Super Stock is an intermediate local level division in North America. Royal broil 05:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N for sure when one has not competed in a professional series. --Artene50 (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG for sure. The person hasn't yet played in any international or notable game nor has done anything else to establish WP:N. →TSU ^tp* 07:00, 19 June 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 as blatant hoax, nothing to discuss here. - filelake shoe 07:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden ceremony[edit]

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

Non-notable; "Soon to be famous" is not enough and other information is false, at least according to a quick web search — Yerpo ^Eh? 07:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if not speedy delete. I can find no mention of this band on the internet at all, so I'm going to say that this is just an outright hoax. I'll tag it accordingly.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:33, 12 June 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. as an unsourced BLP. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Khalid[edit]

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

Article has existed for over three years and only supported by a facebook page - reveals low independent notability - Youreallycan 06:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The originating user is a one-edit account User:alik82 ('82 being his birth year). The article has extensive unsourced edits a few years later by User:Alikhalid82, who also released the ridiculously over-filtered image as a self portrait. Only one mention of an actor by that name on IMDB (which probably isn't even him). This looks like a non notable vanity autobiography.Grayfell (talk) 07:29, 13 June 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} 06:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ashok Kheny[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability not established. Not enough sources. Not notable enough to be in wikipedia. Bharathiya 19:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Weak delete Bharathiya 19:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bharathiya (talk • contribs)

You are the nominator. Why are you voting as "weak" delete? If you don't want it to be deleted, why nominate? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~ Bharathiya 16:27, 30 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bharathiya (talk • contribs)
- Why are you !voting delete multiple times despite being the nominator? —SpacemanSpiff 12:50, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Struck double !vote above by nominator. Feel free to comment all you want, but only one !vote is allowed in AfD discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article i.e, the person to which it is concerned has all credibility to be wikipedia. The infrastructure and engineering project he has undertook is the biggest in the state of Karnataka. Besides, he has a multifaceted personality of being a actor,producer and politician.Also, loads of information is available in independent reliable sources.I will add more references in short time. Thank you. I welcome the responses.--Irrigator (talk) 13:09, 4 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 5 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* 06:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick search on Times of India shows that it satisfies GNG. He isn't just a road builder. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is much enough to prove its notability. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 10:34, 13 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sesh Heri[edit]

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

Fringe theorist and writer of unread science fiction whose only claim to notability is that a friend of his, another prolific fringe theorist, once described his ideas as "brilliant" but filled with "misunderstandings". No nontrivial GNews or Gbooks hits; web coverage appears limited to promotion for his books and unreliable/fringe sources. BLP article includes no references and no reliable sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 22 May 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* 15:44, 29 May 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I know what it is like to struggle but, nonetheless, I don't think this article is rooted in notability.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 06:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At this point, I do not see WP:NOTABILITY demonstrated. I did not independently look for sources though.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google Books throws up some brief mentions, but Google gives very little or nothing in reliable sources (not even the major sf websites), and I can't find anything in the big book review sites. The included references are not complete, with no indication of magazine issue numbers, page numbers, authors, article titles, etc. Fate is a long-running publication and a story there would help, but which Sunset Magazine is it? It doesn't sound like this one. In summary, no evidence of notability online; there may be some material in magazines but it's not clear which magazines or what they say. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:50, 12 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ek Var Piyu Ne Malva Aavje[edit]

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

Article contains no sources, and I've been unable to find any. Doesn't appear to meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Not that it really matters, but the article creator is the son of the producer/writer/composer/lyricist. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 06:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 06:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The proffered article title may be suffering from incorrect translation. I would ask that Indian editors better able to read and translate the film title from the article's non-English theatrical poster look in and check the translation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a Gujarati film which is spoken in state of Gujarat in western India.--Vyom25 (talk) 11:58, 3 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:59, 5 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* 06:21, 12 June 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. Enough sources to pass WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) —Hue Sat Lum 15:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SMTown Live World Tour III[edit]

..... Well two of the shows have happened, so there you go. Second,the set list is an actual reliable source and so are the venues along with the dates and location. Third, these have been actual events. So just leave it be because I am sure many people find this information helpful and not just an announcement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.169.214 (talk) 04:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as promotional. Only one of the shows has been done so far, and the only reliable source is nothing more than an announcement. Note that I removed some promo videos by SM Entertainment--this, like many pages on SM Entertainment, has no encyclopedic value. If reliable sources report on the actual events, that's a different story. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See Lady Gaga's The_Born_This_Way_Ball#Tour_dates it have future dates too. Also I can see 5 reiable sources. If user Drimes want to delete future tour dates I'm fine with that, but I'm against deleting the entire page all together. It's like "One man's trash is another man's treasure", maybe user Drimes find something is useless, but for someone like kpop maybe finding the page valuable. --Lpmfx (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Michaela den (talk) 03:32, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have added a few more WP:RS and to me it passes WP:GNG for notability.--Michaela den (talk) 04:57, 30 May 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)} 20:51, 5 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* 06:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are enough WP:RS to pass WP:GNG. This is obviously notable. →TSU ^tp* 06:55, 19 June 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. While Quasihuman does make a decent argument that the subject passes WP:BAND, there's not enough participation here for a "keep" close. Also, the article has some serious sourcing issues. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Assembly[edit]

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

Article has no reliable sources. A quick Google search has not revealed any coverage of the topic. Only sources are social media and self promotion. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin I have refactored this malformed AfD, it was also not listed in a deletion log. I am adding it to today's deletion log, please consider the time of this comment as the start time of the AfD. Monty ₈₄₅ 04:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found this [13] but that's it. -- Whpq (talk) 16:21, 31 May 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)} 20:55, 5 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* 06:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to pass WP:BAND criterion 5: "Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels". Shades of Blue (Faith Assembly album) and Descent into Madness were seemingly released on the A Different Drum label, which meets the criteria in WP:BAND as an: "independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are notable". Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 10:22, 12 June 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 Lake Chelan. Redirect too — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emily von Jentzen[edit]

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

Not notable 67.112.204.118 (talk) 06:22, 28 May 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 May 28. Snotbot t • c » 06:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge (see below). This subject is only mentioned in relation to her swimming the length of Lake Chelan, and her swimming the length of Flathead Lake is only mentioned in passing in the sources that I found. This is a remarkable achievement, to be sure, but unfortunately we have advice on just this kind of situation at WP:BLP1E, and that advice is that articles like this should be deleted or merged. (And there is no strong case for merging in my opinion, as an article about the event would likely fail WP:EVENT.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 28 May 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)} 20:54, 5 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* 06:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant material to articles on lakes. It's not clear to me how notable these achievements are, but they could be mentioned in the articles on the lakes and a merge would save contents. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good point, and I concur. Both the lake articles should probably have a brief mention, and the redirect should point to Lake Chelan, as that was a bigger scale of event than the Flathead swim and got proportionately more news coverage. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:07, 12 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Claims to have won an award at a film festival but after checking the festival itself seems to be far from notable [14]. Only coverage seems to be in a handful of blogs, and no one associated with the production appears to pass the GNG. Part of a long series of articles all created by sockpuppets all involving the same small set of non-notable cast and crew. Ridernyc (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Small independent horror films do not have the same level of coverage as do the big boys, and yes... the article needs some work, but Dread Central and Bloody Disgusting are accepted as suitable sources for indie horror. And no, its notability will never match Amityville Horror. Take problems with its author(s) out of the loop and we have at least one topic that is barely notable enough for inclusion... just. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone associated with this production was in anyway remotely notable I would agree that the blogs could maybe be enough. Ridernyc (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If they were personal blogs, rather than sites with editorial oversite, I would not have opined as I did. And per WP:NOTINHERITED I care not one whit if those associated with the film are notable or not, I only care that the film received coverage in sites considered reliable for indie horror pics. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:40, 24 May 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Independent horror cinema is a niche subject, and not widely covered in well-known media. But the sources cited in this article are considered reliable in the field, so do demonstrate notability of this film. JulesH (talk) 18:39, 28 May 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, TOW talk 23:25, 5 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* 06:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep per passing GNG through (named and not named) sources. Despite the nominator's claims, Dread Central and Bloody Disgusting are reliable secondary sources and not self-published blogs. Cavarrone (talk) 10:38, 18 June 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 WP:CSD#G11:G11: Promotion; G5: Created by a blocked user in violation of a block; G3: Apparent hoax. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

G.M College[edit]

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

Has had an "unreferenced" tag since April 2010. Is it a college, as the article states, or a high school, as the infobox states? Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G5 if User:Aimanakbar997 is found to be sock of User:Mr Hamza. The unreferenced tag date is misleading. The article was created yesterday with those tags included by Aimanakbar997. The same goes with the article White Rose School System Faisalabad created yesterday by the same user. -- KTC (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The creator appears to be using it as a promotion for himself - I have removed several self-promotive sections (Diff - [15]). Mdann52 (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not satisfied this institution is real. All I can find for "G.M College of Science and Technology" is 1 incidental hit at academicjournals.org and a lot of Facebook pages. The article has almost identical problems with G.M College Faisalabad, which is the confirmed work of User:Mr Hamza's sockpuppets. That page to lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 12 June 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} 06:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

11th Song[edit]

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

Non-notable album, fails WP:ALBUM JayJay^{Talk to me} 02:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not improve the article then? Francium12 (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Highly notable artist, there is additional sourcing available for this article. Also we should consider the organizational scheme of coverage for this artist. Absolutely no content is going to be deleted here, at worst we end up with the content merged somewhere, but that will almost certainly be a more awkward setup then the current scheme.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Not sure what deletion achieves other than worsening Wikipedia's coverage of the group Deep Blue Something. Francium12 (talk) 13:29, 13 June 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 Abu Sayyaf. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Sulu kidnapping crisis[edit]

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

Non-notable event. Also this is not the 4th nomination I was having troubles nominating this article using Twinkle JayJay^{Talk to me} 01:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Abu Sayyaf? I'm not seeing enough coverage to convince me that this meets Wikipedia:Notability (events). Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 13:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above. Non notable, really, but neither should it disappear from the record. Bearian (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Abu Sayyaf. There's a history section in the parent article that could use some expansion.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful info and speedy delete the rest as primary author. –H T D 06:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content and delete the article. This particular incident isn't particularly notable, so it should instead be mentioned in the article of Abu Sayyaf. Not all kidnappings are notable, right? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:41, 15 June 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. No consensus to delete, weak consensus to merge but no consensus for a target. That can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per suggestion I moved the article to Mitläufer clobbering the redirect to Bandwagon effect. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mitläufer[edit]

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

DePRODed by author claiming that this is a creation for a legitimate redlink. Concern was: Unreferenced. Wikipedia is not a dictionary Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference provided. Will provide others. Mfhiller (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)mfhiller[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is a start (or a stub if you will) toward describing an important topic related to the post World War II period in Germany, and those Germans who came close to collaborating with the Nazis. The concept here, analogous to "fellow traveller" when describing pro Communist relationships, is certainly an important and notable one. The article needs to be expanded and better referenced, not deleted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Mitläufer, which is currently a redirect to bandwagon effect. Article names should not include quotes. JIP | Talk 05:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that we should get rid of the quotes. As the article isn't quite enough to stand on its own right now, we could also consider a merge to denazification. (Mitläufer should also redirect there if we merge). —Kusma (t·c) 07:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to fellow traveler, as this is a specific instance of that wider term. If we do the merge, we also should re-redirect Mitläufer to fellow traveler as the existing target doesn't mention Mitläufers at all.--Colapeninsula (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Denazification, where this term is mentioned. I wouldn't be opposed to a keep either, but only if there is a significant amount of material which could be used to expand this article. Robofish (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

as the author of the article in question, though it has already been expanded by another editor, I apologise for the objectionable quotation marks. can someone who knows how to change this do it? also, I would be happy with merging the article under either (or both) denazification and fellow-traveller. I would be even more happy if the term wasn't redirected to "bandwagon effect," which is only loosely connected. Mfhiller (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)mfhiller[reply]

*Merge to fellow traveler. Also deal with redirect to "bandwagon effect." Mfhiller (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)mfhiller[reply]

Merge to fellow traveler. Independently, it has very less chances of expansion. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Denazification. Mitläufer (literally running with hence "lemming-like") was just one of five degrees of cooperation with the Nazis: Hauptschuldige (major offenders), Belastete (offenders), Minderbelastete (lesser offenders), Mitläufer (followers), and Entlastete (exonerated persons). Fellow traveler is more often associated with communism but one could add a See also or a brief German usage section. — John Harvey, Wizened Web Wizard Wannabe, ^{Talk to me!} 13:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This degree is the most controversial one. It represents a particular interpretation of German behaviour during nazism, not similar to Communist fellow travelers. I already tried to expand the article, I'm pretty sure it is not over. Filinthe (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Filinthe. This is an especially controversial classification of German behaviour during Nazism that although the article may be subsumed under denazification probably deserves a separate article provided that it is expanded. Should definitely not be merged with the article "fellow traveler" as there is no relation with the sense in which it is used to refer to communist fellow travellers. Mfhiller (talk) 03:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)mfhiller[reply]
Keep per Filinthe and Mfhiller. really controversial topics are almost always notable. Like its antonym, sisu, this word entered the English language in the 1940s, and remains a relevant topic today; once notable, always so. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Not notable enough for separate article - appropriate as part of list of creatures (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Afanc (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

Non notable minor creature from Dungeons & Dragons. This is a summary of sections of D&D Monster manuals. I'm tempted to say WP:NOTMANUAL, but I really want to say WP:NOTMONSTERMANUAL. Salimfadhley (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "WP:NOTMONSTERMANUAL" - what does that mean? There's no guideline or policy saying that Wikipedia cannot have articles on Dungeons & Dragons monsters, and such articles have regularly survived AfDs. Regardless of the notability issue, there is no point deleting this page, since it makes a perfectly acceptable redirect. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or there's no particular reason not to revert it to a redirect. BOZ (talk) 04:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out below, if redirected a suitable target would be List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with BOZ. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above two entries are a pair of textbook WP:ATA violators, and should be discounted in the final analysis barring some sort of expansion or explanation. Tarc (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tarc's analysis, these two comments are problematic. First, they are really misleading, because they recommend at the same time two very opposite actions: "keep" implies that the subject meets the notability guidelines, but "redirect" implies it doesn't. And, as Tarc said, they blatantly ignore that Afd are not votes, neglecting to state why this article should be kept (since "keep" is written first and in bold, we're to assume it's their first choice).Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, sorry about that, I should have been more clear. Yes, "keep" would be my first choice (preference, rather), but since there aren't even any remotely independent secondary sources, and not likely to be, I suggested that it should be restored to a redirect rather than delete outright. I don't believe there is anything wrong with redirecting an article which doesn't display any notability. BOZ (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be quite clear about it, I agree with the above analysis by BOZ. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and it also appears that the afanc was included in the Tome of Horrors series – since that is an independent publisher, that does lend at least a bit towards the idea of not deleting this one. BOZ (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources for notability must be reliable secondary sources (ie proving analytical and evaluative claims), if the monster is merely used as part of the game campain, then it's not a secondary but a primary source.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect because "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists" (WP:N). The sources only prove that it exists. Start with developing a section in a list, then start an article per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. WP:NOTMANUAL does not apply; there is nothing about this article that tells you how to play the game. That said, there are no secondary references to support WP:GNG that would merit it having its own article. There is nothing to really merge; the article is not of encyclopedic quality and likely never will be. - Sangrolu (talk) 12:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Fails WP:GNG, but a reasonable search term. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually, there's already Afanc, which is clearly the inspiration for the D&D monster. Is there a way we could merge in some content to that article? I'm thinking now redirecting to the 1st edition list wouldn't make sense, since people would find the primary article first. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is even Welsh mythology in popular culture#Afanc, but it might be nominated for deletion sooner or later since it's completely unsourced...Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No real-world significance for a fictional creation, no assertion of in-universe importance. If a suitable redirect location can be found then so be it, but this is such a minor and trivial thing that the usefulness is slim. Tarc (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a suitable redirect - the article that I created Afanc (Dungeons & Dragons) as a redirect for. Deletion serves no purpose here. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yes, D&D is notable, that does not mean that each and every one of the hundreds of creatures in the game's books are thereby notable. Fictional topics require real-world notability; this article has zero independent reliable secondary sources, and because of this the article has no notability whatsoever. - Sudo Ghost 19:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable as per WP:GNG, doesn't have any independent secondary source with significant coverage. Same opinion as Tarc on potential redirect (and in any case, I don't want it to be just a page blanking with the history kept intact).Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is also a related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankheg (2nd nomination), which I was make aware of on my talk page. I think it's more appropriate to make everyone aware of this, as opposed to only individuals that !voted delete in this discussion. - Sudo Ghost 21:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it's necessary to state that at this point, all the keep! voters here (Polisher of Cobwebs,BOZ, Sangrolu and Torchiest - well, minus Sangrolu who voted redirect) have already !voted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankheg (2nd nomination). This AfD is about a D&D monster and it seemed logical that users here might be interested in another AfD about a D&D creature, it just happens that the only !voters who had not yet taken part to the Ankheg AfD are delete !voters, but this is unrelated to the notifications send, keep !voters here would have been equally notified had they not already !voted in the Ankheg AfD.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also said redirect. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient independent and reliable sources to WP:verify notability of this fictional monster, beyond notability of D&D as a whole. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See another related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lamia (Dungeons & Dragons) (2nd nomination).Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet the notability requirements of WP:FICT for a stand-alone article. Would recommend a redirect but there is no single page I would default to between Afanc, Welsh mythology in popular culture, and List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. Besides, who would search for Afanc (Dungeons & Dragons) anyways? I never qualify my name searches unless the search box recommends it to me.--Joshuaism (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who would search for Afanc (Dungeons & Dragons)? Anyone who was both A) Interested in Dungeons & Dragons, and B) aware of the naming conventions for Dungeons & Dragons articles. That's why it makes a perfectly good redirect, and shouldn't be deleted. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 03:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
a google search didn't provide a high enough number of hits to prove that "Afanc (D&D)" would be a relevant search term on WP.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How would a Google search prove anything either way? Obviously if my theory about why people might search for that name is correct, people would be searching for it on Wikipedia, not on Google. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Google being the most popular search engine, it can be a good tool to measure how likely people are to search for the term. If people are genuinely interested in the topic, I don't see why they would limit their search to WP. Unfortunately you can't know the future and thus you can't know how many D&D fans will search for this creature (the assertion that "every D&D fans necessarily knows about Afanc" seems erroneous, at least according to Jclemens[16], who has "never heard of [Arfanc] despite a good decade of playing AD&D 1st edition"), then google is the only way we have of estimating the likeliness of "Afanc (D&D)" being a search term here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would only make sense if you suppose that people would make exactly the same kind of searches on Google that they would on Wikipedia. The two sites are very different, and it's reasonable to suppose that people would use them differently. And to be absolutely clear about it, I don't suppose that anyone interested in D&D and familiar with the naming conventions of articles about D&D monsters would search here for Afanc (Dungeons & Dragons), only that there are reasonable grounds for supposing that some of them might. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that Afanc (Dungeons & Dragons), which was started as a redirect, was only one of many redirects of a similar nature, and that no one has objected to any of the others. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankheg (2nd nomination)--Joshuaism (talk) 02:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters, per WP:ATD. This doesn't appear to have independent notability, but the content would fit fine there per WP:NNC. Note also that delete !votes which do not explain why a merger is not an appropriate option are not policy-based reasons for deletion in light of WP:ATD. Jclemens (talk) 04:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An implausable redirect it's much of an WP:ATD, and there's nothing with any WP:WEIGHT to merge. - Sudo Ghost 04:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge to Afanc is it is a plausible search term and the subject matter is very similar. The Welsh mythology in popular culture was created by an editor whose main interest was removing IPC material from various mythological entities leaving material on a creature such as this (frustratingly) scattered across three articles. Content per se needn't be restricted to secondary sourcing, but does for notability, so the meat of the article can happily exist in a parent Afanc article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A google search doesn't bring too many hits so I wouldn't say it's a "plausible" search term.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is a somewhat esoteric term, and the fact there is a folkloric creature with the same name and characteristics already makes it a more valid target than a list of... article. Many esoteric topics do not have large volumes of traffic. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would be assuming that every person interested in celtic bestiary is also a D&D player, which is bit far-fetched.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no idea how you came to that assumption/conclusion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hard call. The article hasn't been around for any real amount of time, so it's unlikely there are many links to this article. And while Afanc is a reasonable search term, Afanc (Dungeons & Dragons) probably isn't. That said, I honestly think an smerge to Afanc is in order as it would be reasonable to have a bit of coverage there (a sentence or two with a link to the D&D list). So SMerge to Afanc.Hobit (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This fantasy creature is based on real-world mythology and the similarities and differences between the two things help study of this part of folklore and the gaming culture inspired by it. Big Mac (talk) 08:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above comments, not explaining why the article should be kept according to policies, amonts to WP:ILIKEIT and should not be taken into account in the closing analysis. Worse, it doesn't seem to be based on any existing article since this one is not about real-world mythology and doesn't mention it. Besides, since the user doesn't ackowledges the absence of reliable sourcing or doesn't propose any relevant source, the user is trying to push for the inclusion of original research in the article, suggesting that a study of similarities and differences between the D&D creature and the mythological creature could be done by contributors themselves.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you're not suggesting the two water entities both spelled "A F A N C" are entirely unrelated are you? Hysterical. No-one is suggesting OR - a concept often has discussions of various depictions which needn't do anything except reflect their sources. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read before commenting. I'm not saying the 2 creatures are unrelated, I'm saying the articles aren't. This article is about the D&D creature and not the mythological creature. As notability is not inherited, the notability of one cannot be used to support a supposed notability for the other. "based on real-world mythology" is irrelevant in a notability dispute. As for the other part, you can only admit that a "study of this part of folklore and the gaming culture" based on "similarities and differences between the two things" doesn't exist yet. If this is an argument to keep the article, then it is irrelevant because it isn't supported by any existing content, or else it is a call to create this content. But the user doesn't provide any source on which to base this content, indicating that such a study would not be notable and not be possible under WP's principle of verifiability (and thus is a very poor argument for conservation), and if it was done, it could only be through OR. In short, the user's argument for conservation is either based on something doesn't exist or if it did, would violate WP's core policies, meaning this "keep" comment is an aberration. I'm eager to see the sources you claim this content supposedly "reflects".Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't negate a merge argument. An over-article on an entity called Afanc needn't end at 1980 either. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with what Casliber is saying, and why, exactly, would D&D not qualify as a form of mythology anyway? The point is, the D&D creature on its own may not be notable, but as an "analysis and transformation" of the original mythological creature, it surely can add substance to the base article. There is no notability to inherit if we merge the articles. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:40, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A WP article arguing that Dungeons and Dragons would be mythology on the same level as Welsh mythology would require extensive secondary sources not to be a huge violation of WP:OR. I'm not saying this will never come to be, but because it's currently not the case it's irrelevant and dreaming about it doesn't solve the notability issue this article has right now. Propose a merge if you want, but keep in mind that developing the D&D content specifically as "analysis and transformation" of the original mythological creature (as opposed to merely "xxx in pop culture") would also require extensive sourcing, and given that you can't seem to find it even for the D&D creature itself, I consider it highly unlikely you'll find it for such a mythocritical approach. But I'd sincerely be delighted to be proven wrong.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At a minimum, how is a primary sourced mention that "X creature appeared in X versions of D&D games" origjnal research? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, no, that wouldn't be OR. However, actively comparing the two creatures and discussing their differences(which is how I interpreted Torchiest's concept of "analysis and transformation") would already be OR by synthesis without secondary sources establishing the relevance and encyclopedic value of such a discussion.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:04, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I agree on that point. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - why not add all the other Ad&D material too - it is clearly important for the gaming fans of AD&D. OracleB (talk) 12:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)— OracleB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'm sure your comment would benefit of a policy-based argumentation as to why this article should be kept. The topic may be seen as important by some, but there are reasonable and well-argumented concerns that the topic does not meet the general notability guideline, and you don't seem to be adressing these.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That it may be important for "gaming fans" doesn't matter so much (there are other, more appropriate websites for that). I'm sure a changelog would be "clearly important" for a developer, but just because something is important to a specific group of individuals doesn't mean it belongs on Wikipedia. - Sudo Ghost 21:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per Torchiest, to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters - valid as a redirect to a list for inclusion, but unsuitable/not notable enough to include on its own. BarkingFish 00:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. I kinda feel like Dragon magazine articles should count toward notability, honestly, without regard to standard conceptions of independence, but that would still only be one notability-establishing citation, so there's no visible evidence that this topic is viable for its own article. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BarkingFish CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 01:34, 24 June 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's My Car Worth?[edit]

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

I couldn't find reliable information about the article, not on Google News, not on Google Books, so i nominate it at AfD, since it has many citation and notability tags from September 2011. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 03:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like it could be a fun show, but the article's only source (IMDB) does not even tell us what network it is on. So notability not established. Borock (talk) 16:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Did a search on my DVR and did find that it airs on Discovery's Velocity network, so that may narrow things down for searching thankfully, as a general search for the title is weighted down with spam. At this point, remaining neutral to see if this can be rescued. Nate • (chatter) 18:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Switch to Delete Found the show on yesterday and it's just another 'roll out the cars, hear the bids, gavel the winner' car auction show among many, like Mecum and Barrett-Jackson, but more of a road show not stuck to one chain. Nothing at all unique about the program except for filling time on Velocity. Nate • (chatter) 19:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I searched for about 30 minutes without finding nothing but the Discovery reference, which in fact, is not enough to stablish notability. I remain neutral on the article but, as it's been a while since it was tagged as unsourced, i felt it needed to be on AfD to see if it's worth to keep it or we have to delete it. Thanks. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 18:24, 5 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a simple GNG failure. Indie films get axed all the time for lack of sources, this is the same sort of vegetable... Carrite (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, not verifiable. --Lockley (talk) 00:33, 19 June 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. Davewild (talk) 14:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Pisani[edit]

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

Article subject fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NMODEL criteria Demdem (talk) 05:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This individual doesn't seem especially notable to me but as a winner of Britain's Next Top Model she would appear to meet WP:REALITYSTAR -- and yes, I know that's not a generally accepted standard, but it's a relevant one. AND, according to the navbox, all the other such winners have an article. Neither of those reasons is especially strong but precedent seems to play a part here. Ubelowme (talk) 21:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toffey20 (talk)KEEPToffey20 (talk) Tiffany is one of the winners of Britain's Next Top Model, all of the past winners have a wikipiedia page so it is only fair and right that Tiffany Pisani also has a page.

There are many links and press on Tiffany Pisani and she is currently still modelling full time and internationally.

I strongly recommend keeping this individual as she is still young and I believe she will continue to succeed.

It is important that this page remains as it is a very trust worthy and should not be suddenly deleted, non of the terms have been violated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toffey20 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't going to help. -- Trevj (talk) 10:48, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep- No, Lianna Fowler is a redirect, so they do not all have articles, and meeting a failed proposed guideline is no sign of N. Yes, the terms have been violated, using YouTube video as sources; if the material can't be sourced independently, it needs to be removed, and the videos removed regardless. That said, an article titled 'here to stay' seems to denote beyond BLP1E. Fair doesn't play a part in it, aside from third-party coverage, which is minimal. Dru of Id (talk) 08:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:BASIC and refs 1, 3 and 5 in the 7 June version. Concerns over WP:TOOSOON and WP:BLP1E may exist but I don't think they undermine the coverage which exists. -- Trevj (talk) 10:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she has been on a major TV series - clearly she should have a page on Wikipedia and other sites. OracleB (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)— OracleB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Trevj's argument for WP:BASIC/GNG is on-point. However, WP:BLP1E is not applicable here. Of the three conditions for the applciation of BLP1E, the second reads "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." (policy statement). The stated intent of BLP1E is largely to avoid the inappropriate coverage of people who do not thrust themselves into the public square. This is the polar opposite of what it means to be a reality-show star. BASIC met (by a hair), BLP1E doesn't apply at all, I'm left at keep. --j⚛e decker ^talk 14:59, 22 June 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} 06:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Sister the Vampire[edit]

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

WP:NN book series failing WP:NBOOK. Unable to find any indication this series meets any of WP:BKCRIT.

The following books in this series are nominated to be deleted with this series:

Revamped!
Switched (book)

Toddst1 (talk) 18:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are other, closely related articles:

Olivia Abbott
Sienna Mercer

Chris857 (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 6 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The first thing I noticed is that the character page is almost entirely a copyvio from this site [17]. I'm going to investigate to see if any of the others are the same.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Both of the book pages had copyvio issues of one sort or another.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I did a search and while this does have a fan following enough for one such fan to paste copyvio over almost all of the articles, all I could find for the book series was one review by Publishers Weekly.[18] There's some non-usable blog reviews, but that's about it. You could also lump the author in with the pages to be deleted, as a search for her name doesn't bring up any sources that show notability either. It's popular, but as far as Wikipedia is concerned there's no notability for any of these pages.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a speedy template on the author page since it didn't seem to have been included in this AfD. If it's not speedied then I'll create an AfD for it myself, but hopefully I won't have to do that. I feel bad whenever I have to do stuff like this. I'd much rather keep stuff, but guidelines are guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even compared to other books for children, there's very little coverage (even on blogs, etc). I don't think the series or author or books are notable. And the Publishers Weekly review wasn't high praise. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three. No attempt made to provide any references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:02, 13 June 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} 06:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Jeffries[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Completing nomination for User:Paxti. On the merits, I have no opinion. The original nomination, mistakenly posted to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross Jeffries, follows. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of page for individual who appears to have little notability and appears to be have been created for self promotion. He is involved in the "pick-up" industry which is notorious for unsubstantiated promises of success for men with the opposite sex and for shameless self publicity in an attempt to make profits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paxti (talk • contribs) 17:54, 5 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 5. Snotbot t • c » 19:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To add further, the referencing is extremely poor and no convincing material is available to suggest this page is notable.

Not only is the topic seemingly non-notable, but it also appears to exist only because of multiple editors and should be deleted as per WP:SOAP --Paxti (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Paxti (talk .

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based only on reviewing the past AfD's, there appears to be strong consensus he's notable. However, it looks like he's notable almost solely for marketing himself and his company. Very similar situation to the recent deletions here. --Ronz (talk) 16:13, 8 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was just about to add this page to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State management (NLP) because the guy seems to be a not-particularly-notable writer on the subject of NLP (I can't actually see anything here to suggest that he is, so why is he in that category???). Having looked at some of the sources on offer here, it seems he is also an obvious self-promoter and the sources are pretty weak, not reliable, dead or promotional. One of the reliable sources (Strauss' book) also says that his claims to notoriety are false! Famous_dog 12:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Delete Article breaches items 1,4 and 5 of WP:PROMOTION. Autarch (talk) 14:11, 15 June 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. Although strong concerns about a rather concerted effort by a family member in play, there appears to be enough sources to now meet GNG and ENT (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jannike Kruse Jåtog[edit]

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

Non-notable Norwegian actress. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per meeting WP:ENT,[19] and apparently WP:GNG.[20] Enlist assistance from Norse-reading Wikipedians in translating sources and improving the article, as notable to Norway is perfectly fine for en.Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:45, 6 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ I disagree that she meets WP:ENT as she seems to have only had minor roles in the TV series and few movies she's been in. She seems to be on the borderline of WP:GNG. I put the first ten Google News hits through Google translate and got (list re-ordered):
- [21] is an article actually about her, talking about the release of an album.
- [22] and [23] say she played the title role in the opera "Donna Bacalao", which seems to be notable;
- [24] and [25] are routine reviews of concerts she sang in, which say nothing about her;
- [26] is a TV review that only mentions her once;
- [27] says she's voice-acting for Norwegian Bob the Builder but doesn't mention her except in the cast list;
- cinemaview.sk no longer exists and the two pages within mil.no that used to mention her are dead (and the site search engine returns no hits for "Kruse").

Dricherby (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to weak keep. I still think she's on the borderline of notability but I now feel that she's probably on the notable side of the border. Dricherby (talk) 08:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - You can't trust other wikis when it comes to establishing notability. WP:ENT says actors should have "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." The notability of most of the films she has had any role in has not been established per WP:MOVIE and it doesn't appear she has had significant roles in the movies that aren't red links. Therefore, she doesn't meet the criteria of WP:ENT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.201.160.18 (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC) — 108.201.160.18 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - I've added a reference to her article in Store Norske Leksikon, a general-purpose paper encyclopedia, which make her notable. Article needs clean-up, as it looks like a rough translation from the article on no:wiki. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that a reliable source? The Wikipedia article on Store Norske Leksikon says that it's now a user-editable online encyclopaedia (essentially, a Norwegian-only rival to Wikipedia). Dricherby (talk) 10:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Although the online version is now editable, the history of the Kruse Jåtog article appears to indicate that it was transcribed from the print edition in 2009 and has not been altered since, so if the print edition can be considered reliable, I suspect this online version has the same reliability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK. Dricherby (talk) 15:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While GNG is demonstrated above (print encyc, first link provided in Dricherby's analysis), it also appears that some commenters missed that many sources omit "Jaton", e.g. see, [28], [29]. --j⚛e decker^talk 14:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent. Now we have GNG as well as ENT being met. Well done. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As I noted at the Erling O. Kruse DRV request to restore the Erling O. Kruse article, my impression is that someone is trying to put the Kruse genealogy in English Wikipedia:

Anine Kruse Skatrud (a redirect)
Benedikte Kruse (a redirect)
Bjørn Kruse
Jannike Kruse Jåtog (which now is at this AfD)
Philip Kruse
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astrid E. Kruse Andersen (Husband is Bjørn G. Andersen)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dag Anders Grothaug Kruse
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erling O. Kruse (now at DRV)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Just Kruse

The Erling O. Kruse article notes how the above are all related. NOT:GENEALOGICAL ENTRIES comes to mind. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Knuand wrote all those articles. But even if an editor translates articles about his family from Norwegian, we should keep the two articles that are notable. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Even Kruse Skatrud, as I noted at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Just_Kruse. Dricherby (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't belive what I can see here "Mentoz86", you have forgotten your role her Delete Kruse from Wiki!! Knuand (talk) 11:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - I have to admit to have written this artcle! I'm the cousin of her father - God Forbid!! You can not live with an article written by someone who actually know somwthing about this persen. If I have got this right people could come to get relevant information from this articles, and that wasn't what you planned. I for one would be confused when advicing my students not to use Wikipedia as a reliable source! PS! I'm so ashamed of myself, I wrote the article about my father Bjørn G. Andersen, and now you know what you have to do!! I also added Even Kruse Skatrud to your Wiki, and he is married to my cousins daughter. This stinks!! Knuand (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please assume good faith, and remember that Wikipedia does not accept original research - it is about what can be verified, not 'the truth'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is a notable person. Been in many films. OracleB (talk) 12:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC) — OracleB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside of AfD. [reply]

"Mentoz86" praises the job of deleting Just Kruse, Erling O. Kruse, Astrid Kruse, Dag Kruse, Anine Kruse and Benedikte Kruse from eng. Wiki, at norwegian Wiki and gives warnings about me as a writer. Now "Mentoz86" has started the same Vendetta at norwegian Wiki. I don't know why this is happening, onely that it is annoying for "Mentoz86" to see people from the Kruse-family at Wiki. Knuand (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why is more then one entry from the same family problematic? I can't understand that this is a criteria for delition. Obviously it is so and some of the partisipants here don't want to have "Kruse" at Wiki. Why? Knuand (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no problem having more than one entry for the same family, as long as the people individually meet the criteria for inclusion within Wikipedia, such as the general notability guidelines. Note specifically that notability is not inhereted so being the father/mother/son/daughter/etc. of a notable person is not enough on its own. Dricherby (talk) 14:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion above indicates otherwise ... Knuand (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Focus gentlemen... focus. Any issues with other articles need be discussed at talk pages or AFDs for those other articles or talk pages of the article's author(s). HERE we are speaking about the notability or lack of Jannike Kruse Jåtog. Best we stay on topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Comment This discussion has moved far off topic (the topic being the notability of Jannike Kruse Jåtog). Since Knuand seems to feel that there is a broader problem, I recommend that he seek redress in the appropriate forum (perhaps WP:RFC or even WP:ANI if he feels that administrator action is required). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like I'm the problem to User:Uzma Gamal and User:Mentoz86. They don't want "Kruse" on Wiki. I don't know whay! Knuand (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Norway everybody knows who Jannike is! She has been on TV-shovs, reality series and played main roles in action series on NRK. This is rather like a farse, because I think you should know! (But I'm norwegian) Knuand (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If everyone in Norway knows who she is, it should be easy for you to add some reliable sources for the article. Sources in English would be ideal but sources in Norwegian would be fine, too. Dricherby (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - And the point being missed Knuand, is that it looks like there is enough sourcing available so that the Jannike Kruse Jåtog article is going to be kept. Was your own delete above intended to be sarcastic? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bravo - yoy got it!! Knuand (talk) 06:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As there is only one !vote per customer, perhaps you will ~~strike~~ it out as well, now that your point has been made? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~I just can't belive that this kind of ignorance exists! Knuand (talk) 08:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]
~~To me, questioning Jannikes notability is just as if I should question the notability of Cate Blanchett Knuand (talk) 08:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete - The topic lacks the significant coverage required by WP:GNG and does not meet WP:ENT. On top of that, we have NOT:GENEALOGICAL ENTRIES policy issues noted above and a Kruse topic WP:COI editor going around from one place to another making accusations that violate WP:AFG against anyone who has an opinion different from that editor. The purported paper encyclopedia reference to Store norske leksikon noted above in fact is the online Great Norwegian encyclopedia owned by Freedom of Expression and the Savings Bank Foundation as a non-profit organization that, like Wikipedia, works with knowledge dissemination.[30] The content the online encyclopedia provides on Jannike Kruse is not much more than a listing of her jobs rather than a detailed written account of her life and fails to provide significant coverage. WP:GNG requires multiple sources, not just one, that provide significant coverage, and the other references noted above do not assist in this. The topic also needs to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people):entertainers. No one has (1) cited to any significant roles Jannike Krus has had in films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions or (2) shown that any of those productions are notable. Both these are required by WP:ENT, so the topic fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The actions and COI of the article's creator are irrelevant to whether the page should be deleted. The page is a biography, not a genealogy, so WP:NOTDIR doesn't seem to apply. Dricherby (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This actres and singer artist has had many major roles in plays at central Norwegian theathers like Nationaltheatret and Riksteatret, the main role as Sonja in the play Reisen til Julestjernen at the Nationaltheatret in Oslo 1993, for one. She has also let out several music albums in Norway with the record Jannike Kruse – Med Andre Ord (in other words) (2009), presented at NRK 21 April 2009, as the most prominent. Beside this she has partisipated in several films, with role caracter Merete in the comedy film A Somewhat Gentle Man with Stellan Skarsgård as Ulrik, as the most important, series with the main character as Police investigator Randi Johansen, a TV series by Nordisk Film of one of Unni Lindells books about Cato Isaksen as one, and Norwegian TV-shows like Beat for Beat – tone for tone (program 12) with the programleader Ivar Dyrhaug as one, another was a big reality show in Norway Spellemann på taket (Fiddler on the roof), with Kåre Conradi as partner, as the most famous. I can go on and on like this if that is what you want!! ... But I think this will do for now ... Knuand (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing editor: Knuand has already !voted above. Dricherby (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He acknowledged when asked that it was intended as sarcasm. Perhaps he will ~~strike~~ it out... or perhaps the closer will recognize it as the disgruntled author's non-vote intended. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not what we want. You need to present reliable sources to back up these claims. You need to demonstrate that the films and plays she has appeared in are notable (the sources that show she was in them may help to establish notability there). Dricherby (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling here, is that the criteria for notability is somewhat different for different entries ... Knuand (talk) 08:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)Knuand (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An other example: Bjørn Kruse - to me it would be rather obvious that his notability is established!! But no ... there must be a STGMA connekted to the Kruse-name. Knuand (talk) 09:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One more eksample to illustrate Even Kruse Skatrud - I say no more ... Knuand (talk) 09:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: Are there two standards for notability on Wikipedia - one for Kruse contributions and another for other contributions? Knuand (talk) 10:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No. There is one standard for notability. That standard is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and it applies to all articles on Wikipedia, whether they are about somebody called Kruse or anything else. You have been told this several times. Dricherby (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not contes this, and I do appriciate it! It is the practice that is problematic: Too many people are too concerned with deliting other peoples work. There has evolved a culture of "outing" others, or taking other contributors down, and especially new ones, like mee. This is a problem you should be more aware of! I don't want to be a "pain in the ass", my agenda is to adress a problem ... Knuand (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I had decided to leave English Wiki for good, after the delition of my entry on my mother Astrid E. Kruse Anderssen. It wasen't until this figure "Mentoz86" began to spread sewage about me at Norwegian Wiki that I got really angry, and thought that I had to stand up ... (I had no idea of how things where sorted out here at Wiki, onely an idea about rools ...). But this trigged me, and now I'm ready to fight!! Knuand (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and when I saw this figure "Uzma Gamal" starting to elaborate on my connections with the Kruse family, it made me really furious!! Knuand (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've been pointed various times to policies like assume good faith so you should no better than to post this. You may also like to read wikipedia is not a battleground --62.254.139.60 (talk) 08:01, 24 June 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} 06:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Berkshire Capital Securities[edit]

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

WP:NN company - unable to find any significant coverage - plenty of directory listings, linkedin, and a few passing quotes by employees. Toddst1 (talk) 21:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 6 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage in reliable sources appears to be very slim. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No dog in this fight, but tending towards keep as the Googling begins. Let's see... THIS is a simple corporate listing from Inside View. com. Carrite (talk) 18:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing anything in the way of sourced coverage of this "boutique" investment firm. I'm sure they've got lots and lots of money, etc., but not seeing anything to support encyclopedic coverage. Carrite (talk) 18:04, 12 June 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) →TSU ^tp* 06:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matam Bin Rajab[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for organisations (contested prod) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 22:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bahrain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not notable?? It's the first Matam in the capital Manama. Ilikecod (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For many reasons. This is the first Matam in the capital. Important meeting take place for the current Arab Spring in Bahrain. And, even without these two, it is a notable place of worship. Clearly, the article needs to be expanded. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:19, 7 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is definitely notable as it is one of the first Matams to be built in Bahrain. Droodkin (talk) 19:24, 14 June 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.