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-binding recommendation to move and rework the material in Resilience engineering. (non-admin closure) Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resilient control systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

After surviving one deletion discussion six months ago, this article continues to have multiple serious issues, including tone, notability, acceptable sourcing, conflict of interest in its primary author, and above all, clarity on the subject treated. What's more, there no longer seems to be any contributors willing to even try to rehabilitate it. Issues are well-documented on talk page. Snow (talk) 06:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Neither tone nor CoI are causes for deletion: tone is resolved by editing, and CoI by careful attention to neutrality. Actually neither tone nor NPOV appear especially problematic in the article as it is today, but please feel free to edit it to read better. Clarity isn't a cause for deletion either; and again, the article is pretty clear. On sourcing, I haven't attempted to check the dozens of sources supplied, but with this thoroughly referenced an article, I don't think there's a SNOWball's chance of deletion on grounds on notability. That leaves the question of self-plagiarism: not an ideal situation; but as nom notes, the article has already been heavily edited since it was drafted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: With respect, I disagree on one point in particular; notability cannot be established solely by a glut of sources. The content also has to be presented in such a way as validates the usefulness of the article. At present the article is so steeped in the professional idiolect of the author that it fails to adequately establish its argument and thus its notability. The vagueries of the language employed are covering for the fact that little is actually defined in the article. The entire thing basically boils down to saying that modern technological infrastructure is complex and interconnected and presents challenges in maintaining stability their stability under stress. The problem is that this is a statement of perspective, and outlook presented through the narrow context of particular theories on the resilience of such systems, but it doesn't actually define any subject in the manner that Wikipedia article should. The article is not titled "approaches to resilient control systems" because that would highlight instantly why the article isn't working, but honestly that's the most honest title for the article as it's content is presented now. The page reads exactly like the conference presentation from which it was adapted and lectures/presentations are just not the purpose of Wikipedia. This, in my opinion, breaks the article as it fails to constrain itself to, or even adequately define, its own subject matter. Snow (talk) 12:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability doesn't depend on the article's content, but on the article's subject ("Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article" - WP:N). But even if it's notable, deletion might be justified if it was beyond repair. I agree it needs serious work, but there might be notability behind it. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good distinction to make and a point which gives me an opportunity to clarify my position here further; I think the subject of a Control system meets the notability standard -- that's why we have that article. What I feel does not meet the notability standard is the concept that some control systems are going to be more resilient than others or one man's speculative perspective on how such systems can best be achieved. That's not encyclopedic content. An article on widespread technology is entirely appropriate. Opining in the vaguest way imaginable upon design priorities for future iterations of that technology is entirely not. Snow (talk) 06:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete [AS NOM]: I'll try to clarify my position further here. Imagine we have a Wikipedia article entitled "Resilient chess strategy"; it concerns itself wholly with forwarding principles on how to best approach your opponents the game, the most important strategic factors (as the author sees them), tips for refining your process, ect. That article would be quashed immediately, because we recognize Wikipedia is not the place for advice, how-to's or promotion of personal theories on the best practical approach to a situation. The current article is analogous; we already have a pre-existing article on Control systems -- it describes the overall technology in detail, separates subtypes and links to appropriate pages with further info. If anything from the currently debated page is found to be of value, it should be moved there. This article, meanwhile, has become nothing more than a backdoor means for the author of the original work to promote his ideas concerning the best design for a control system. Consider this following excerpt:

The benign human has an ability to quickly understand novel solutions, and provide the ability to adapt to unexpected conditions. This behavior can provide additional resilience to a control system, but reproducibly predicting human behavior is a continuing challenge. The ability to capture historic human preferences can be applied to bayesian inference and bayesian belief networks, but ideally a solution would consider direct understanding of human state using sensors such as an EEG. Considering control system design and interaction, the goal would be to tailor the amount of automation necessary to achieve some level of optimal resilience for this mixed initiative response. Presented to the human would be that actionable information that provides the basis for a targeted, reproducible response.

It doesn't even concern itself with existing technology or principles, bur rather is speculation on a new approach that the author is advocating. The whole article is like that, speaking in terms of "challenges," "goals," and "advantages" moving forward. Only the awkward, overly-wrought language is somewhat obscuring the fact. If someone wants to try to extract some of the content, parse it into something more intelligible and add it to control system, I say have at it. But the current article is self-promotional, and instructive/speculative in nature. It can't really be salvaged as a whole because it's basic purpose is at odds with policy on what a Wikipedia article is allowed to be. Snow (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The wikipedia article on control systems is far from comprehensive, has serious omissions, and different scales of depth. The networked control systems article has similar challenges, as are the 20+ other directly related articles that are all referenced from the control system article. Regardless, when considering resilient control systems, which is an aspect of cyber-physical, multi-disciplinary research that is primarily only being funded by fundamental science/engineering agencies such as NSF, the issues go far beyond control theory and control engineering. What has been laid out within the resilient control system article is a definition for resilience, as contrasted to reliability, and perspective on the human aspects that shape research within this area. It was not intended to be definitive, as it is not a mature research field, but a characterization of research area that can be enhanced as the research goes forward. The (IEEE Technically Co-sponsored) International Symposium on Resilient Control Systems, as well as other related conferences (CPS Week 2012) are defining and shaping this research area based upon these common precepts and a shared view by a number of organizations and people. --Crieger (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Crieger, it's good to see you're still around afterall - even if we are on different sides of this debate, your presence can bring some clarity to some issues and perhaps save the content in one form or another. To address your immediate comments, let me start by saying that I appreciate you're coming from a complicated position; you're in an emerging field of research which has yet to establish it's fundamental principles and terminology, but you feel the developing perspectives are useful information. Here are my concerns: First, and most prominent in terms of the AfD, I don't think that a definition of resilience vis à vis control systems justifies an independent article. There are hundreds of thousands of articles with content where "resilience" in one sense or another is a relevant factor, but it's impractical allow a separate entry for this qualifying term, just as it would be inappropriate to have articles for "Efficient solar panels", "Effective algorithms" or "Powerful hydraulic presses". Qualifying discussions of existing technologies and what makes for a practical variant should be included in the article for said technology.

Comment:Unfortunately, you are comparing the generic use of a noun (adjective) modifier (good, nice, advanced) with a multi-organization research program that has both an IEEE symposium (now in its 5th year), many other conference venues and a load of papers moving forward under this definition and design. --134.20.11.89 (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My second concern is that the findings of this field so-far seem to be rather vague, and thus it may not qualify for notability on those grounds as well. Several section of the article at present boil down to statements like "networked control systems are more vulnerable to cyber attack." and "cyber attackers will attempt to circumvent protections by exploiting vulnerabilities" (my paraphrasing), which are statements that should come as surprise to no one. In fact, most of the existing paragraphs could be reduced down to just a sentence or two once the excessive field-specific jargon is stripped off them (that's not a criticism of you or a suggestion that you're actively trying to inflate the content's significance, by the way -- I've been in academia and know how that stylized manner of writing can end up permeating your discussions with even non-experts, but Wikipedia demands an approach that is more accessible and plainly worded). But I just don't see much in terms of concrete findings or concepts in the current content. There are a couple of exceptions, including several mentions of novel technologies (EEG's or other sensors that report on the status of the control system operator, for example). But for each such piece of solid new information, there's a whole lot of filler in terms of vague speculation. On the whole, I just don't feel the article passes muster on WP:Notability. But since you have arrived back on Wikipedia just in the nick of time, I have a proposal for you. Suppose we merge this article with Control system, creating a section within that page titled "System design and resilience" (or something along those lines, I'm sure you can come up with something appropriate). We could reword the content a little to be more appropriate to a mass audience (you have to remember, the average Wikipedia user has never attended a scientific conference and may not have read so much as a single peer-review article) and trim the fat just a little. I happen to agree with your assessment that that existing Control system article is flawed in it's own right and I can't help but think it could benefit from the attention of an expert such as yourself. But regardless, it seems the most appropriate home for this content. Snow (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I do not believe your suggestion is a good one, and I also believe you missed the intention of my comment. The current article on control systems discusses of a few methods of control, a few algorithms of control with one computational technique expanded on (there are many) and many system architecture types, followed by links to 20+ control system articles, many of which could be combined under this one article, or tied in some more logical fashion than what you are suggesting for resilient control systems. The point is that the control system article is about, for and of interest to one discipline, control engineers. The resilient control system article considers a much broader context of modeling humans, malicious and benign, as well as delineating for those in technical fields what the research aspects are, and how they might be considered and include many disciplines. The notability issue was clearly already covered above by Chiswick, as the wikipedia article itself doesn't even match the original paper in a line by line comparison (only in the sections and definition), and is now littered with plenty of references and sources to address this concern. If it is suggested that a further discussion on developed technologies be provided before it is "viable" in your mind, one can be accommodated, but that will not address the ability of understanding the material. The idea of using the descriptive information in the wikipedia is to give some understanding of the research area to readers with some background. This is important as most of the technical articles, such as Bayesian Network, provide the ability to gain some level of understanding of the why/how/what, given you have some familiarity with the science to start.--134.20.11.89 (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But this need has to be balanced against the need (considered policy), to word all articles in a manner that is accessible to the average user. I understand that you redrafted the page from the original research document, but it still very much reads exactly like you'd expect research to be related at a symposium, and that's just not what we're going for here. It's not citing the relevant technical innovations that I'm talking about - that's entirely appropriate. But the entire article is couched in a very insular field-specific idiolect that's just going to be unapproachable for the average user. And I'm sorry, but if you can't see that, you're spending too much time at those conferences!

Now as to the much more relevant issue of notability, Chiswick has not responded to my concerns as I detailed them after his commentary. You make a point that noun and modifier are not the same as an established idiomatic term pertaining to a distinct field of study. This is true in principle, but it's a higher burden of proof if you're claiming this is now an established sub-discipline of industrial engineering; the sources which support individual points within the article don't necessarily also satisfy the WP:Notability requirements, though, having looked through those references, maybe you could make the argument. But even then, the article would be "Control system resilience theory" or something along those lines and would necessitate a different approach to the content entirely. All of that being said, you have offered to add content concerning more concrete examples of the technology involved to contextualize things. To answer your implied question, yes, that absolutely would go a ways to mitigating what I feel is lacking in the article. That would put some meat on the bones, since this article, as it's title and lead present it, is supposed to be about a trend in technology, not technological speculation. That, and the fact that you seemed to be gone, are the only reason I brought it to AfD, and only after waiting for comment on the talk page for a while. The problems with tone can be slowly refined, but the more immediate bar that the article has to meet is relevant content that satisfies the articles title topic and some solid specific examples of the technology in practice are exactly what that content should be, imo. And I understand that a big part of the subject of the article is the feedback loop between the operator and system and that theory is by necessity wedged in there, I just think the technology should be front and center so the article is consistent in what it's subject is. Snow (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Control Engineering in general is not a sub-discipline of industrial engineering, let alone the multiple disciplines involved with resilient control systems. Most of the technical articles, such as I mentioned about Bayesian Network, are beyond the normal non-technical user, but you clearly don't make that distinction, nor do you look at the serious omissions and overlaps of the other articles within all the series of links in the control system article. The networked control system article, for instance, specifies systems features that are common to all digital control systems (of the last 30 years) and specifies briefly that the distinction is the communications network and its impacts on the feedback loop. There are a number of papers and compiled volumes that discuss this, but only research into how to possible address latency with no certified solutions. This article says little to even characterize the breadth of communications-related issues that can impact the control loops, nor even much of the more promising research that has been performed to find theories and solutions. However, I do not see you comment on this article or any of the other plethora of control system related links and similar so-called issues, only the resilient control systems article. With this said, I will look to enhance the article with additional content regarding the system technology framework, which I think is most applicable.--Crieger (talk) 04:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sure many of the others are flawed or limited but, with respect, we're not discussing the failings of other articles here. Actually, I am going to do some editing on Control system, which has some of its own issues, and would be happy to have your knowledge and assistance in that task, but that really should be discussed elsewhere and can wait. Snow (talk) 05:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is quite relevant, as it relates to what your root motivations are, as clearly all technical discussions are going to be somewhat (as a minimum) foreign to the non-technical, but that doesn't limit the benefit, and the complaints you oddly have about this article, are consistent with attributes of other articles discussing technologies of similar maturity.--Crieger (talk) 13:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my motivations are also not at all relevant here (other than to say that you should assume good faith). I can't even recall under what context I came to the article, to be honest with you, but I saw it had some significant issues and here we are. Regardless, the failings of other articles and how the present one stacks up next to them is not the focus of this process. I can't edit all of the technical articles on Wikipedia (well, give me time, we'll see ;), but I can attempt to address issues when I come across them. It's an iterative process. As to your point that all technical discussion are going to be somewhat foreign to those uninitiated in the relevant field, this is true, but the current article does not even approach language which represents a minimum barrier to understanding while still maintaining accuracy. The relevant policy for that can be found here (the sections of particular relevance are items number 7 and especially 8).

You don't remember how you arrived here, although you have been passionate enough to write extensively about what is wrong with this one of actually hundreds of control related articles? Okay. It doesn't come close to the concepts you are familiar, perhaps. However, I would submit it does come close for the majority of people that would even care about such things as resilient control, human systems and cyber security. It also provides an introduction that is very straight forward for most, as per the guidance you referenced. Compared to academic papers, this is a very high level read. I am concerned you admit there are similar issues with other subject area articles, but yet as an honest broker, I don't see you go through them and mark them all for deletion (not suggesting in any way that is an appropriate response, but certainly consistent for you). Note that I have added some additional text and a figure, as it was fairly quick to do, and will add more as I get time. While it adds more "meat," I doubt it will make any strides to be more understandable for you.--Crieger (talk) 02:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've made quite a few accusations there, so let me address them in parcel:

You don't remember how you arrived here, although you have been passionate enough to write extensively about what is wrong with this one of actually hundreds of control related articles? However, I would submit it does come close for the majority of people that would even care about such things as resilient control, human systems and cyber security.

I wouldn't say I'm passionate about this particular process; rather this is the kind of routine work that needs to be done to maintain the quality, integrity and tone of the project. Not that I'm under circumstances required to impart to you my motivations here -- these issues should be decided on the merits of the content and the facts, not motivations, real or imagined -- but for the record, let me assure you there's no particular driving passion at work here. I've been trying to be polite about the quality of the content, but if you want me to be frank, I found a horribly (for Wikipedia's purposes anyway) written article of questionable notability and substance which I felt should be deleted. In the interest of consensus and not excluding another contributor's efforts summarily (and because AfD's have many times surprisingly turned an article that was felt useless into something of value), I have tried to work with you in this discussion and on the page itself. You'll notice that I placed a tag at the top of this page to mark my endorsement of keeping this discussion open and your article -- and we rarely use possessive language to refer to articles here, but it seems inappropriately accurate in this case -- from being deleted. I've also tried to help adjust the wording of sections to be more consistent with encyclopedic tone and even fixed some formatting issues. This despite the fact that A) I still have serious misgivings about the value and appropriateness of the content in general and B) my only help in the process is an inexperienced editor with a serious conflict of interest concerning the article's subject matter who shows little interests in taking time to understand Wikipedia policy and process and who views me with open suspicion. It's a pretty ballsy move to question the motivations of another editor when the article in question is basically a transcription of one of your personal research papers, with your own name and work cited prominently (aside from this article, you've contributed in only three others and in each case only to reference your own work or talk up the institution you work for). In any event, your making insinuations that I've decided to go after this subject matter out of sheer vindictive zeal for some reason is not helping your case here. And doesn't make much sense, for that matter, unless maybe you think a resilient control system killed my brother?

Comment:Actually, I believe you are disregarding that a number of other people and organizations are part of the effort. In general, you have also not been polite about the content. I started questioning why you wanted it deleted, as the type of content was consistent with others in the area, but you seem to concentrate on this one. Resilient control systems is an area I understand about, and both the definition and aspects presented lay the ground work for further enhancement by other editors.

Okay. It doesn't come close to the concepts you are familiar, perhaps.

It's not my area of professional expertise, no. But Wikipedia's contributor's are not required to be credentialed experts on the subjects which they contribute to. In fact, the popular view is that being too intimately associated with a subject can be a serious obstacle to objectivity (a premise you ought to be familiar with as a researcher, even if you are in a field of engineering) and level-headed editing and that, as such these topics should be avoided or at least approached with extreme caution -- hint, hint. Even experienced editors have to be careful of this, to say nothing of editors who created an account for no other apparent purpose than to write about their own research. But if you meant to imply that I don't understand the subject matter, then the answer to your question is "hardly". The subject of your article is not that difficult to grasp, nor is the technical complexity that high. The only reason it is difficult to digest is the convoluted (for the average reader, I imagine almost nonsensical) researcher's idiolect that you have presented it in. The only reason I don't have that much difficulty with it is because I come from an academic background initially by way of a social science; there's no abstract, overly-wrought, field-specific-buzz-term-laden, needlessly unapproachable mess of academic psuedo-speak that anyone can throw at me that years of daily exposure to sociologists and anthropologists didn't prepare me to parse! You're not nearly as bad as some I've seen, but the fact remains that the writing style you have applied to this article is completely inconsistent with the tone we strive for here. I have several times directed you to relevant policy pages which signify the kind of language that is expected in a Wikipedia article and which also explain why we use this standard, but you have shown no interest in acclimating yourself to those standards. Instead you continue to insist that your approach would be superior to the people you feel would get the most use out of the article, oblivious to the fact that we intentionally try to write articles in a fashion such that their content can be understood by virtually anyone -- including someone without technical knowledge in the broader field which the subject belongs to and even someone who can't or won't follow a single link on the page to a related article.

Comment:The standards you reference are a guideline, and seeing the resulting products in a related technical area, I see no issue to this and it appears that you are the only editor that really has.

It also provides an introduction that is very straight forward for most, as per the guidance you referenced.

I'm not sure if you are referencing the lead, or the section actually labelled "introduction" (which is redundant to the lead on a Wikipedia article, by the way). If you're referring to the lead, then the reason it is so much more plainly worded is because I added it, as an attempt to point you towards the type of language you might use elsewhere in the article which informs clearly upon the subject without compromising the accuracy of the concepts; unfortunately, it seems it did not have its intended effect, seeing as the content you've added since continues to employ the same inaccessible language you've used in the rest of the article.

Comment:I was referring to the Introduction, but I have since edited the lead that you added as I don't believe it quite reflected the intent. I appreciate your thoughts behind rewriting it, however, as it seems you got enough out of the article to be close.

Compared to academic papers, this is a very high level read.

See, that's a problematic viewpoint for Wikipedia. I'd say most of us here are of the opinion that even extremely complex subjects can be explained to the lay-person if they are broken down and imparted in the right fashion. If you are not capable of doing this for a given subject matter, then you probably shouldn't be a contributor on it's article, let alone basically the sole editor. We have articles ranging from cosmology and mathematical methodology to sitcoms and obscure footwear; the authors of each of those articles had to find a way to reconcile the complexities and context of the subject matter with formulating articles that are accessible to everyone (it's kinda the mission statement, in fact). I'm not saying that this balance is always easy -- sometimes it takes years of collaboration and consensus-building to get it right. What I am saying is that you're miles off from that mark at present and you're proving unwilling (or as-yet incapable) of leaving behind the context in which you usually discuss these concepts and adapting yourself to the requirements of this project, which is one of many reasons why editors are discouraged from contributing where they have a conflict of interest. Here, let's try something -- detail for me, in brief, the ten major statements of fact that you find most relevant to your article, only word them as you would explain them to a highschooler, using no (or at least the smallest amount feasible of) terminology that only a person who works in or near your field would know. If you, apparently a leading authority in the subject, can't do that, then I submit that either A) you are not the ideal person to be participating on this article, let alone being more or less its sole driving force or B) the article 's subject lacks sufficient substance to justify its existence. Or do you believe the complexity of your article is so much more vastly demanding than, say Enumerative combinatorics or Big Bang nucleosynthesis that it defies this approach? Because once I got past the cryptic semantics you employed, I didn't find the content of the present article particularly hard to digest, if I'm to be honest.

Comment:I don't believe this is a complex article, and is not written that way. Unfortunately, it is tough to parse all the terms consistent with the field and still maintain the relevance of the content to an audience that would care, and the extreme examples you mention (and there are plenty more where that came from on Wikipedia) are beyond most high schools or liberal arts college graduates. For those that just want to see what it might mean, they are covered as well, as they don't have to read past the introduction. There is credible of substance to substantiate this article's existence, including several symposia proceedings available on the web, research project results for 5+ years, and engineering documents from a number of organizations and participants.

I am concerned you admit there are similar issues with other subject area articles, but yet as an honest broker, I don't see you go through them and mark them all for deletion (not suggesting in any way that is an appropriate response, but certainly consistent for you).

Actually, yes it would be consistent for me to mark articles with similar issues, and I do, when I see them. But, and I'm not sure how many different ways I can explain this to you -- I'm only one editor. The fact is, I came across this article and it and only it is relevant to the present discussion. You seem to be of the impression that I should only nominate articles for deletion which I am familiar with through some particular context. Perhaps you are unaware that we have many dedicated editors (essential to the operation of this project) who spend the bulk of their time involved in tedious, repetitive tasks involved with removing inappropriate content who rarely ever participate in adding their own. There's no degree of previous level of involvement required -- either with regards to the subject or the article itself -- to make a change to page here, even a deletion. All that is required is that you follow policy and make an effort to form a consensus with other editors. Of course, sitting back and familiarizing yourself with the process before making assertions about how things should be doesn't hurt. Also, it would perhaps benefit you to recall that this is not the article's first AfD, nor am I the first editor to find fault with your fundamental approach to it.

Comment:Understood. The former AfD was more widely debated, and boiled down to use of open content. Although there were people on both sides of the debate, I conceded and rewrote it.

Note that I have added some additional text and a figure, as it was fairly quick to do, and will add more as I get time. While it adds more "meat," I doubt it will make any strides to be more understandable for you.

These additions have done nothing to address the systemic issues with the article, nor do they remove the overriding notability issue raised above. I was actually preparing to dig in for the long haul and spend the next couple of weeks parsing your material into something a little more understandable and seeing if the we couldn't save the article after-all, but given your refusal to do any research regarding Wikipedia process and policy and your outright paranoia about my motivations, I now view this level of collaboration infeasible.

Comment:I, in fact, did read the few references you pointed me. I believe my discussion is on practicality of doing so and consistency with articles of a similar subject matter, which prompted the other discussion.

And shortage of editors, however regrettable, is no reason for deletion either. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but rename (and rework) to Resilience engineering (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), a clearly notable and somewhat more general topic, in which the main area, however, is the design of resilient control systems.  --Lambiam 21:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this idea has potential. Snow (talk) 04:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the (benign) human interaction role is quite similar, as evidenced by at least one reference to a noted text in this research area. However, there are a number of aspects that are not well covered from normal resilience engineering standpoint, including cyber security. As noted, it is also broader topic (I suggest quite a bit, and know personally one of those leading this area), but certainly very notable and deserving its own project in its own right. Cyber-physical system research also is a related area, and referenced in this article.--Crieger (talk) 13:41, 17 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 Sun-60. (non-admin closure) Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Russo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

No indications that this TV and film score composer is notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see newest additions that demonstrate this composer's notability in the following ways: 1. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. 2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. - Benatural0000001 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benatural0000001 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC) — Benatural0000001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment The BMI award is not one of the major awards listed at WP:MUSIC. Considering the cited reference list 37 winners for this award in 2003 (for broadcast TV only, not counting film and cable), this award may not be selective enough to confer true notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Point taken, though the BMI awards are perhaps not so trivial as the amount of recipients per awards ceremony ratio may suggest. The criteria for receiving this award demonstrates this clearly: BMI honored the composers of music featured in the past year’s top-grossing films, top-rated prime-time network television series, and highest ranking cable network programs tonight at its annual Film & Television Awards. Note that the article states that only the top rated prime-time network television series are honored. BMI has 500,000 musician members worldwide, with a membership that includes some of the most prolific musicians and publishers in music, film and television. Taking that statistic into consideration, 37 member award recipients out of a 500,000 member body is a very small percentage, and therefore these awards can arguably be viewed as notable. Additionally, this number represents a pool of recipients across many disciplines and categories, so the "large" number is to be expected. Anectodotally, consider the Grammy Awards. There are many more than 37 award recipients per award ceremony, but does this make the honor any less significant? Lastly, consider the second point above in my first comment. Surely this composer has made "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" considering the depth of his filmography and discography. Benatural0000001 —Preceding undated comment added 17:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment actually, that argument makes the award even less significant. If the award is given simply based on the popularity of the show, it has nothing to do with the accomplishments of the artist at all. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 04:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How is that exactly? Perhaps you may not understand the role of music in film and television industry sufficiently. The popularity of a show is result of the sum of its parts, any one working in any discipline of the entertainment industry will tell you that. Steven Spielberg himself said that Sound and music make up more than half of communicating a story, greater even than what you’re seeing. Francis Ford Coppola also makes this assertion: "...sound was your special friend because sound does at least 50% of the job sharing with picture, but sound was infinitely cheaper than picture. So we decided in the early days... that we would put a big effort in the sound capabilities of the films. Sound, by nature, includes both sound effects and music. Simply put, if these shows had poorly executed music, they would not be as popular. Similarly, if these shows had poorly executed acting or scripts, they would not be as popular. Now this does not mean that films and television shows that have quality music, acting and writing will always be popular. And yes, popularity does not necessarily imply quality. Regardless of these subjective measurements, achieving popularity and success in the film and entertainment industry is a valid measurement of achievement.Benatural0000001 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.255.134 (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The popularity of any media project is the result of the combination of a lot of factors, to be sure. But in the end, the technicians and artists responsible for all of those factors are not all notable. A television program in which the boom mike is constantly visible would be ridiculous, but we don't call the guy who holds the boom mike out of the camera shot notable because he has achieved that feat. Notability (for Wikipedia's definition) has clear definitions, and Russo has not met them. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Here is additional material supporting notability Wikipedia:MUSIC#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles:

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.

http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHKZ_enUS431US431&sugexp=chrome,mod=9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=composer+interview+david+e+russo+heats+up+the+new+cw+series+nikita

http://www.amazon.com/Composing-Music-A-New-Approach/dp/B0073V7KY8

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118041496?refcatid=3219

5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or on one of the more important indie labels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun-60#Discography

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Russo#Discography

10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_(TV_series)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Blue_(TV_series)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleventh_Hour_(U.S._TV_series)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI:_Miami

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronicles_of_Riddick

Benatural0000001 —Preceding undated comment added 07:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Of all of those items, the only one that comes close to being a real sign of notability is the Examiner interview, but one must consider the nature of Examiner.com itself (essentially an outlet for independent bloggers) to evaluate whether this constitutes significant coverage. Let's look at the rest of the claims one by one.
    1. The Amazon book link isn't even real: the authors listed for the book are incorrect, as can be seen at the book's Google Books entry.
    2. The Variety "article" is really just a listing of the composers for every prime-time television show for the summer of 2011.
    3. The Sun-60 discography is real: if this is the only claim to notability, then the article can be redirected.
    4. The David Russo "discography" is just a list of Russo's credits: he didn't release these albums, he is just credited on the production of them.
    5. The WP:BAND criteria in regard to "performed a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show,..." refers to composers or performers responsible for the generally recognizable theme for a show (say, the theme from M*A*S*H), not the generally unrecognizable background music. The TV credits for Russo seem to be exclusively for "additional music" or for single episode music. His film music credits are as a "programmer" -- not generally the artist one credits with creating the music. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes I see your point. Though the final point with regards to "composers or performers responsible for the generally recognizable theme for a show (say, the theme from M*A*S*H), not the generally unrecognizable background music." might be inaccurate. He has composed all of the music, including the main theme, for the TV show Nikita (TV series).
  • CommentHere is a review that comments on the his work: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Nikita-The-Complete-First-Season-Blu-ray/22615/ Does this qualify as published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentarie? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benatural0000001 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment That review doesn't really count as significant coverage: it's a review of the DVD release and the note about Russo constitutes about 1/2 of the last sentence, which is buried in a paragraph about the sound quality of the disk. And it's not a terribly favorable 1/2 sentence at that, but Wikipedia guidelines don't require favorable coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Sun-60. I do not see that the notability criteria are satisfied by any of the material above. My own seraches did not turn up anything either. As a member of Sun-p60, a rediect to that article is appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

José Treviño Morales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Trevino was just arrested on June 12 for being a money launderer of a Mexican drug cartel. Wikipedia is not a newspaper per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. As Trevino wasn't a "renowned national or international figure", he also fails WP:CRIME. Trevino has a brother, Miguel Treviño Morales, who is a drug trafficker. Prod was contested with "This is a breaking story covered by international media, national media and local media in two countries. There is enough information from various sources that it should be easy for Wikipedias editors to compile it and have a José Treviño Morales piece alongside and separate from his brothers Miguel and Omar." Bgwhite (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The news coverage about this subject certainly doesn't appear to be "routine", so I'm leaning towards a redirect or even a "wait and see" at this time. It's been asserted that he is second-in-command of Los Zetas, which I think would warrant a redirect. I don't think he is a notable horse owner, but he has one that won All American Futurity. Location (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:GNG. Given the subject's separate links to the drug cartel and horse racing, I would be OK with leaving the title as is. Kudos to ComputerJA for adding reliable sources. Location (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article is in pretty good shape now. There's a lot more info left that needs to be included, but it's fine now. ComputerJA (talk) 02:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - easily passes notability guidelines. However, I take the WP:PERP point here, and the article should probably be renamed and rewritten to focus on the event (the raid) rather than the person. Robofish (talk) 12:20, 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. No evidence of notability presented under WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. j⚛e decker^talk 04:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hallam Hope (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Not notable. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL: hasn't played a game in a professional league. Also fails WP:GNG: has had very little media coverage as far as I can see. Clicriffhard (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Clicriffhard (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Clicriffhard (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, coverage is minimal and mostly routine. – Kosm1fent 16:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. As already stated, this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. --Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 11:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Zanoni (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Have not played a match for any fully professional teams and fails WP:NFOOTBALL. No indication of WP:GNG in the article. On the other hand, I find it funny how the prose says that Everton is the biggest club in Merseyside. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - hasn't played in a pro league and not enough significant coverage, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 21:42, 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. (non-admin closure) Electriccatfish2 (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

African town stub of dubious notability, the only (unsourced) claim is that it's near to some waterfalls which are notable. Salimfadhley (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It does appear to be an actual settlement. [1] Even the nom is not disputing it's a town. --Oakshade (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: A quick look through Google Books shows this town actually exists where it says it does. Added two additional sources to the article to give a better idea that this does exist. --LauraHale (talk) 11:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This is a well-sourced article about an actual geographical location. Maile66 (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:NPLACE: Cities and villages are generally kept, regardless of size, as long as their existence is verified through a reliable source Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:03, 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Yet another unreferenced stub from User:Oakley77, an experienced editor who I feel should know better than to create articles without references. Salimfadhley (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. We generally keep settlements and a Google Books search finds multiple mentions of this place. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Indeed, the original stub had all info false (the name of the place and the country). I added two sources, corrected the info, and strongly warned the creator, who seems to have multiple issues with creation of unsourced articles and introduction of false info. I will work further on the article, howewer, in the present state it is sources and at least correct.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Villages are inherently notable and Ymblanter has verified its existence with a few good sources. Jenks24 (talk) 01:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the original unsourced and incorrect article (i.e. all revisions from 23 May to 13 June), but keep the new article created on 14 June by Ymblanter. --Hegvald (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Keep the new article. Provide and update additional reliable references, if possible. --Bharathiya (talk) 19:09, 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. Whether a subsequent redirect to Laotian rock rat is appropriate is an editorial decision.  Sandstein  19:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kebab rat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Article is Original Research with no sources (since at least 2008). A search ("kebab rat" -wikipedia -blog -"is a pejorative term used in the East End" -facebook) finds no reliable sources. Article itself admits term is London slang: but Wikipedia is not a dictionary; and that the term is urban myth, i.e. made up. Phrases like "it is likely", "It is believed that" and "which might suggest" also show the article is Original Research by construction. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Rodents being used in kebabs is not an urban myth (one discovers all sorts of wonderful things at AfD!), but this topic does not merit stand-alone coverage here, per WP:N. I don't think that even a brief mention in kebab would be merited, reliable sources simply do not discuss this. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 21:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn, no WP:RS--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 23:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Laotian rock rat, since some sources use this wording regarding the Laotian rock rat: [2], [3]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. A few edits back in the article I removed some inline links. They may shed light on notability and RS.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify =Only 1 edit by me, April 3, 2 links removed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect as above. Some evidence this term is used in a different context, no reliable sources to back up the use of this phrase in London's End End. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:47, 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gliding New Zealand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

• Delete. Non-notable organisation. Contested PROD. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A little research revealed that it was formerly called New Zealand Gliding Association (name changed to Gliding New Zealand in 2000). Searching the old name does yield some coverage in independent reliable sources like this for example.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 23:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still does not meet WP:ORG. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The organisation covers 27 gliding clubs and schools with a combined flying membership of about 900 pilots and about 360 aircraft in New Zealand. It sends delegates to the meetings of the IOC-recognised, governing body for air sports, the FAI. As independent evidence of its existence I propose the agenda for the 2012 annual general meeting of the FAI. In many of the minutes and agendas they are referred to as 'New Zealand' or the 'delegate from New Zealand' but page 13 on the trophy management section of this agenda they have their full name. see this one . There is also a respected magazine called 'Gliding International' which has many references, but this will not be accessible to many contributors to this discussion.JMcC (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of organisations with more than 900 members that aren't notable. If they're a member of the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale they could be merged there as part of a list of member organisations. References to Gliding International would help establish notability (you can provide references even if the magazine is not online), but would still count only as a single source for proving notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following references were found to prove notability including two from NZ government/government agencies and a national newspaper:

http://www.glidingcanterbury.org.nz/ "Affiliated to "Gliding New Zealand"

http://www.glidingtaranaki.com/Flying.html "training is provided by Gliding New Zealand qualified instructors"

http://www.glideomarama.com/SoaringSchool/Introcourses "note you will need a Gliding New Zealand Medical Certificate"

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10801613 "He was the national operations officer for Gliding New Zealand"

http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/aerial-recreation/3 "The national association, Gliding New Zealand, controls the sport by setting standards and managing the training of pilots, instructors, engineers and tow pilots. It also organises contests, selects teams for world competitions, and represents New Zealand on the International Gliding Commission."

http://www.caa.govt.nz/rules/Rule_Dev_Process/ACAG_Membership.htm "Civil Aviation Authority Aviation Community Advisory Group"

Other major national gliding organisations have their own WP pages eg Soaring Society of America (12,500 members) JMcC (talk) 19:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Very obviously notable. Article lacks references which is a problem, hopefully they will be added shortly. I have paper sources in the loft (attic) if needs be. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - wholeheartedly support Nimbus and previous. WP:N is a guideline, not a policy, which says it is the "standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense.......". True. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moriori (talk • contribs) 02:45, 14 June 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines can be overridden if there's a good reason to do so. What exactly is the reason why this organisation particularly deserves a WP page despite not meeting the notability criteria? --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe WP:COMMONSENSE is the one being applied here... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sufficiently notable within its field, does need work. NealeFamily (talk) 10:12, 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. Someone is free to create a redirect if they think it appropriate. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One Diamond, One Heart (The Smashing Pumpkins song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

While I can see the need to create articles about singles from a particular album, in this case, it's literally just an article about some random track from Smashing Pumpkins' newest album, which according to numerous found sources, has so far released no singles whatsoever. Notability-wise, it fails WP:GNG. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – fails WP:NSONG. Fezmar9 (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fail WP:NSONGS. (I posted the source he used to make this article on the album's talk page as a way to bulk up the album's article, not create articles for random songs. I guess this article's creator did not understand that. I've clarified my intentions on the album's talk page.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. fails WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 23:15, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge information into the album article. - Theornamentalist (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't think that's really necessary, everything outside of the "Background" section was already ripped straight from the album article, and the whole background section is a giant quote ripped from the source that I've already put on the talk page as something to use. Considering all he did was copy and paste a paragraph and link, the quote is excessively long, and the source is available at the album article, there's nothing to "merge" really... Sergecross73 msg me 15:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I understand, but one can certainly change the quote into prose, leave a redirect behind for the album. - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know, I'm just saying everything that is needed to "merge" any of this article's information to the album article, is essentially already at the album article, especially considering anything from this article would need heavy reworking. Sergecross73 msg me 01:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — article fails WP:GNG and as others have said, WP:NSONG can be used here. ⇒TAP 16:16, 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. No evidence of notability provided under WP:BASIC. j⚛e decker^talk 14:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rilion Gracie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This article has no independent sources and fails to show why its subject is notable. The talk page points out a possible copyright concern, but that can be fixed. I'm more concerned that the only supported notability claim is that he is a Gracie and notability is not inherited.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jakejr (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG, as the nom says, "notability is not inherited".--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 23:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - notability is not inherited CyanGardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 10:24, 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 no consensus. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Dienes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

1. notability in doubt 2. most likely claim of "most senior" cannot be verified due to source registration (and intro hints that several women were appointed possibly not making her the first) - the exceptional claim needs exceptional refs 3. cannot verify claims/linkrot/lack of WP:RS Widefox (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• comment: I think most of the material here was originally added by me, some while ago, in a bit of a hurry, and I apologise for the weak referencing. It did all came from sources, more or less reliable, though: I don't think there's any 'original research'. I'll see if I can track down some trustworthy sources to add. mooncow 18:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• comment: btw, the opening line of the Church Times article reads "At Guildford on 1 January, Katherine Dienes-Williams became the first serving woman organist and master of the choristers in any of England’s 43 Anglican cathedrals", which I think clarifies the possible ambiguity implied by the intro description and provides an authoritative source for the exceptional claim. It can be checked at good libraries -- not all references can always be free online, though I agree it's good when they can be. I'll update the ref to a form that includes the quote and can be checked in periodical/journal libraries as well as online. mooncow 18:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• comment:appreciate that Mooncow. question is: news or encyclopaedia? Widefox (talk) 11:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yup, often the issue with BLP when events are still recent. Church Times is not your average newspaper, but neither is it a reviewed academic journal... I'll see what else I can find. mooncow 15:30, 1 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, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - added a couple of sources, one of them (Ext links) Guildford Cathedral itself - in the circumstances, I think we can assume a reliable source, just as it isn't exactly likely the Church Times was making it all up. It is now certain that the subject of this article is notable on the grounds stated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are helpful (although primary, independent?). WP:BLP1E seems appropriate with this BLP - biog claim for notability seems to be for "first" event and nothing else, and the preferred option is an entry on the event. The event seems so minor that it would not justify an article in itself anyhow. This reasoning against policy and after a search for sources makes me confident this BLP and event is newsworthy but fails notability. Can you reason your confidence? Widefox (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Well, if she was known only for being woman 1 in job x, then I'd certainly agree. But she isn't. I thought I was adding sources just to show that the facts were correct as they seemed from the tagging to be in dispute. Since we're now ok with those, question the next is, is her fame ongoing and widespread with material in reliable sources? I think so, and will add sources to show that. Right of you to ask. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:37, 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, SpinningSpark 17:56, 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthouse Beach, Great Fish River (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Not notable, unlikely to become a useful article NJR_ZA (talk) 17:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I tried Google searches for ("lighthouse beach" "fish river" nude) and ("lighthouse beach" "fish river" fkk), the latter to try to catch German-language coverage. I found a few one-line mentions of the beach, but nothing else. This doesn't appear to satisfy WP:GNG. Ammodramus (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete searches yield no significant coverage in any reliable sources, fails WP:GNG--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 23:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: "It is probably not necessary to walk the full 3km to swim naked, It would be fine to disrobe after about 1.5 to 2km." I love useful information like this, though sadly it does not belong on Wikipedia. The lighthouse may be notable however, it dates to 1898.[4][5][6]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great Fish Lighthouse is currently redlinked in List of lighthouses in South Africa, I'm sure it will be created at some stage. --NJR_ZA (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Flygon's friend- Smarter than the average bear! 01:37, 16 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, nominator withdraws with no other comments advocating delete. (non-admin closure) Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 22:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Caitlin's Way episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

The article has no sources, it has nothing to verify any of the content. Even if it did, it's an entirely unnecessary content fork of the Caitlin's Way article. Prod was removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge. Two problems with your nomination. First, you are not claiming (nor do I think you could) that this information is unverifiable, only that it is not verified at present beyond citations to the episodes themselves (which presumably verify the episodes' titles). It is unlikely that there is no source in existence that could verify the broadcast dates and episode titles of a television series that aired on a major cable network, and that these sources have not yet been added is not grounds for deletion because it's a surmountable problem.

  Second, whether or not it is "necessary" to have split this off from the main Caitlin's Way article is a question of article size; see WP:CFORK ("...as an article grows, editors often create Summary style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage."), WP:SPINOUT, and Wikipedia:Summary style. At most, if it isn't "necessary" to maintain this separately, then it would just be merged back into the parent article, and per WP:ATD you still don't have a deletion candidate. postdlf (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, by all means merge it but it is currently unverified by anything and asserts no notability as far as I can see. This kind of "normal behaviour" of spinning off episode lists with no sources is diabolical and should be avoided. Note: I listed it here as a removed prod, so while your "problems" with my nomination are certainly fascinating, I'm doing this procedurally. If you give a damn about keeping this as a standalone list, at least have the courtesy to put in some verifiable reliable sources... Cheers!! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. Will follow the reasonable advice of two seasoned editors and propose a merger. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 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. Consensus that this is a non-notable band (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Unsung Heroes (Band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

A band that does not seem to meet the requirements of WP:NBAND. Although the page appears to be sourced, upon looking at the references, I've found that the only one that is actually a legitimate source is not even about this band, rather its a review of a different band that happens to share a member with this one. The other sources are only Youtube links, and shops where you can buy the music. I have been unable to find any other reliable source to replace these. I initially tagged this for Speedy Deletion, however that was declined due to the reviewing admin stating that its media references was a claim of notability. However, its important to note that its only airtime has been on BBC Tees, which is only a local affiliate of BBC radio that is only broadcast is certain parts of England, and the requirement at WP:NBAND is that they must be placed on rotation on a national scale. Its only other claim to fame is headlining a music festival. However, researching that particular music festival gives me nothing except for listings on standard upcoming event-style sites, and thus I'm led to believe that the festival is a relatively minor and unnotable event itself, thus this band's participation in it does not help establish notability. Rorshacma (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which of these can be used as sources

http://lyricsjunction.com/lyrics/the-unsung-heroes/thats-reality/ http://www.indiependude.com/2012/04/check-out-unsung-heroes-single-out.html http://www.208records.co.uk/ thenorthernline.com/2012/04/04/stockton-calling-2012-2/ http://www.thisisstockton.co.uk/whatson/The-Unsung-Heroes.asp http://www.teesmusicscene.co.uk/review-unsung-heroes/

please help improve this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollyroouk (talk • contribs) 17:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmm, of those, only the last has any chance of being counted as a reliable source, and even that is rather iffy since it seems to be purely local coverage. The other types of links (lyric pages, show listings, unnotable blogs) never count as reliable sources. Rorshacma (talk) 17:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How/When will consideration be removed from article? 31.83.206.181 (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How many sources will the article need??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.78.156.177 (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i have corrected sources and still researching can the consideration for deletion be removed??

Hollyroouk (talk) 08:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion will run for one week when an administrator will judge the consensus and either keep or delete the article. QU ^TalkQu 21:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Unsung Heroes (band) was repeatedly speedy deleted (see log) and was therefore creation protected as a result. Hollyroouk is therefore clearly a sockpuppet of User201212, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of User201212 and the creation of the article under that title is clearly an attempt at block evasion. Valenciano (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:BAND - no substantial coverage by third party sources. -Cntras (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Comprehensively fails the General notability guidelines and fails to fulfill any of the alternative notability criteria at WP:BAND. Not surprising since this group's one and only single was released two weeks ago. No doubt the WP article is part of its internet marketing campaign. Review of available sources:

Harrison, Flicky (16 February 2011). "REVIEW Time For Change by Master Colony". Swindon Advertiser. Retrieved 1 June 2012. [Doesn't mention the band at all, passing mention of one of its members in a review of another band]

Express & Star (2008-02-20). "Inspiral Carpets fly high again". Retrieved 2010-11-01. [Doesn't mention the band at all. Passing mention of the DJ who allegedly played the band's single on Beatwolf Radio three years later.]

Adamson, Christopher (19 April 2012). "Review: The Unsung Heroes". Tees Music Scene. Retrieved 13 June 2012. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help) [Local website run by journalism students [7]]

Voceditenore (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note the "chart" which the band's single has entered was deceptively decribed in the article as Indiependent Music Charts (piped to UKChartsPlus). However, the reference given is to a download site called "International Independent Charts", which only rates recordings which are marketed on their site [8] and has nothing to do with UKChartsPlus. Voceditenore (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Although the above information states violations I can assure this wasn't intended to decieve the reader, I am in no way connected to this band but have an interest in new established acts and labels. I'm a music lover not a pr puppet "otherwise I'd be on some kind of payroll"

I do realise this article lacks sources but I was hoping to expand this over time along with other contributors.

213.205.232.28 (talk) 06:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The deceptive chart information was added by 82.16.89.51, not you, unless you are the same person editing under a different IP. Incidentally, your IP is very similar to 213.205.233.220 and 213.205.232.220, both of which have been blocked per this Sockpuppet Investigation, along with several other registered users. If you are one of the registered users who was blocked, you should not be editing under an IP to evade your block. In any case, this AfD will be decided purely on evidence of notability (or lack thereof), not on questions of conflict of interest or sockpuppet shenanigans. Voceditenore (talk) 08:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I am really confused about all of this, I know that i shouldn’t have created multiple accounts and realise this was against Wikipedia policy and shouldn’t have evaded this. I this indefinite block of my IP this I feel is quiet unfair

I am an independent person to this contribution The Unsung Heroes (Band) it is extremely hard to find sources because of their Band name. I should have checked that before I created this and choice a band more easily notable to create my first article.  I am an English media Student at Newcastle University and felt that this would be good practice for me to gain some real life experience.  I have seen this band perform once at Northumbria University but have no connection to them. I thought with this band being quite hard to search for this would be a good information page “NOT in any way a promotional tool for them. I would like to expand my contribution to this article but would recommend for it to be kept as a UK-band Stub with the minimal information until more can be verified, although at this moment I cant fully prove their notability this band are really under the radar and more notability will be inevitably added soon.   212.183.128.216 (talk) 22:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can i also add The Unsung Heroes played with The View on the 10th June and are again on the 28th June. I found this information on 208 Records website http://www.208records.co.uk/

Also found this article in Leed Music Scene http://www.leedsmusicscene.net/article/10311/

And an interview http://www.chunechat.com/the-unsung-heroes.html

212.183.128.216 (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chunechat has a blog like feel about it and besides that, says: "This is a website where we encourage artists, bands, singer/songwriters, etc., to showcase their work. Any music is welcomed from classical to country to heavy rock." Even if it were a reliable source (which I strongly doubt) they don't seem very choosy about who they include. The Leeds site also seems to be blog/fanzine style. I'd be looking for better sources, for example newspaper reports of this band, to establish notability. If sufficient sources don't exist then I'm afraid we can't just keep this article lying around as a stub on the offchance that the band may become famous per WP:UPANDCOMING. Valenciano (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Off topic message for 212.183.128.216 Normally this doesn't belong in an AfD, but since your IP keeps changing, a user talk page communication is impossible. If you are a registered user who has been blocked, you may not evade your block this way. All edits by sockpuppets and IPs used for block evasion can be reverted on sight. You say "I know that i shouldn’t have created multiple accounts". How many did you create? My advice to you is to go back to your original account and sign in with your original user name. Then go to your talk page, which you will still be able to edit even if you are blocked and appeal your block. You do this by adding ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)) to the bottom of your talk page. Read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks first. Voceditenore (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The latest two sources are poor quality and do nothing to attest to the subject's notability. Leedsmusicscene.net allows bands to publish their profiles and fan reviews [9]. The "article" is simply a press release. It is also virtually identical to the wording in the WP article of this version. Chunechat.com is little better, a local amateur self-published site. You need to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and really take that guidance on board. You also need to read WP:BAND which explains the notability criteria we use here. This band does not pass a single one of them. That is why you are having a hard time finding coverage. We do not keep articles while we wait for a subject to become notable (if ever). We publish articles on subjects which already are notable. No "emerging" artists—only those who have emerged, so much so that they are receiving significant coverage in multiple reliable sources beyond their hometown. There's plenty of time later to publish an article about them when they've finally made it, but until then, this is not the place for an article about them. Voceditenore (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I have removed any unsourced information from The Unsung Heroes (Band) because it was a mistake and should have been written I was just trying to expand the article to soon. This page is up for deletion and I am trying to help the chances of this being kept, The Unsung Heroes announced on their social networking sites their single is being used in Germany for a high profile tv advert. This this article was maybe created a little soon before this band can be fully notable. Their drummer was a member of another 208 Records band The Master Colony do these facts not be taken into consideration??

Also why hasn't the page been removed or discussion closed??? 2.219.78.25 (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions are normally closed after 7 days. Sometimes they're left a bit longer, depending on admin workload.. It will eventually be closed. But please do not remove the AfD template from the article. It will be removed by the editor who closes the discussion. Voceditenore (talk) 17:19, 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 Diana Vickers. redirect but feel free to merge anything useful (non-admin closure) Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Vickers' Untitled Second Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Seems to be a prime example of WP:TOOSOON. Article is about an album which has been very vaguely promised since 2010. Album has no name and no confirmed release date. Since 2010 the artist has been dropped by her record label. The sources cited only say that Vickers is planning a second album. Sources mainly attribute their information to Vicker's Twitter announcements, or occasionally in a direct interview, therefore they are not enirely independent or reliable. I've no idea where the long list of single comes from (or what it represents) - it seems to be entirely original research. How can an unnamed album meet WP:GNG?! The Diana Vickers article already contains this speculation in-depth. Sionk (talk) 16:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note author has subsequently moved the page to Music To Make Boys Cry, with no apparent justification. Sionk (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although, Vickers has recently announced the album is titled Music To Make Boys Cry and is penned for a September 2012 release. Popjustice have also confirmed Diana has been signed to Virgin Records, so she is not left without a lebel. The song list has been confirmed by Diana herself, and there is much information about the writing, recording, composition and production of the album. As the year goes on she will definately reveal more about her album.• Sangha357 (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2012

• Merge referenced content with Diana Vickers. Some of the content is well-referenced (STV, DigitalSpy, The Sun, Popjustice), but some (like the list of recorded songs) isn't properly referenced. Usual WP policy is that unreleased albums are not notable except in special circumstances. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL, could merge as possible. --Nouniquenames (talk) 16:11, 16 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Bakewell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

I have tried to clean this article up, but the creator (who probably has a conflict of interest) keeps reverting to reintroduce unsourced promotional material. The subject herself fails WP:AUTHOR as none of her works have had a lasting impact and she isn't discussed separately from her most notable book. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and clean up if necessary. I don't know what the agenda is here, but deleting 90% of a sourced article and nominating it for deletion is not helpful. One of the deleted sources was a book review in the New York Times. The remaining Guardian link contains a review by The Guardian of the same book. Bakewell is very likely to meet WP:AUTHOR on that basis. I will revert your unnecessary and time-wasting deletion and remove the innacurate 'unreferenced' tag. Sionk (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to other editors - I have attempted to clean up the article and add reliable newspaper reviews (Ubelowme has found a third review - see below). The subject appears to be a respected author. Unfortunately the nominator here is persisting in deleting the content and sources. I haven't got time to pick a fight. Please look at the article in the edit history if this happens again. Sionk (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I found [10] the New York Times review and a review [11] in the Independent, and she's won a National Book Critics Circle Award [12]. These alone would be enough to convince me of her notability. Ubelowme (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Not only for the reasons listed above, but because this is a valid article that is less than one day old. Immediately tagging it for lack of references seems like slamming the newcomer. I'm also unclear how the CoI claim can be substantiated. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I don't want to get into a fight here either, and normally I wouldn't bother replying, but I feel I need to answer some of the concerns raised. If you have a look at the revision of the article immediately before I nominated it for deletion, you'll see that the claim that I "deleted 90% of a sourced article" is inaccurate - there was only one citation used in the article that wasn't to the subject's personal website, and that source didn't back up anything written in the article. At least one editor agreed with me, restoring "my" version after the author reverted. Also, aside from the references to the subject's personal website, I didn't delete any sources; the sources to which Sionk is referring were actually external links (though I do admit to the removal of the link to the NYT review being an error, I must have highlighted it along with the link above or something). Overall, people, I'd like a little assumption of good faith, if that's not too much to ask. I don't really understand Sionk's aggressive stance towards me, either - at no point did he approach me to ask my rationale, he just shot off on the kind of attack seen above. I don't know what kind of motive he believes I have, I assure you Sarah Bakewell has never killed my dog or anything like that! Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – This author passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG:

• Patricia Cohen, 'Conversation Across Centuries With the Father of All Bloggers', The New York Times, 17 December 2010.
• Ruth Scurr, 'How to Live: A Life of Montaigne in One Question and Twenty Attempts at an Answer by Sarah Bakewell', The Observer, 24 January 2010.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:GNG and has been reviewed in major publications sufficient for WP:AUTHOR. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:20, 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. WP:SNOW. Nominator is reminded of WP:BEFORE, and that AfD is not for cleanup. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of universities in Iran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

WP:NOTLINKFARM. Fails the Purposes of lists and does not add content or meaning to our encyclopedia, rather directs readers off Wikipedia. Wikipedia is Not a Link Farm to External Websites --Hu12 (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep (WP:SOFIXIT) No no no. Look at the ((Asia topic|List of universities in)) template at the bottom of the article. Many other countries' university lists are of similar quality, and it's unlikely we'll ever be able to cover these universities adequately in the English Wikipedia. In the absence of a working article on a university, a link to its official page seems harmless. But even if you are dead-set against removing the links, the list of university names has some value. Deletion here would be an awful precedent, as there are many articles with the same format. --BDD (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep via nominator withdraw? See long practice. --→gab 24dot grab← 16:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and WP:SOFIXIT. As per above, this is standard topic. The solution is to improve and not delete the list. -- KTC (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Obviously an encyclopedic topic. Removal of the green links in the body is an editorial matter, not a notability matter. They'd actually be fine if converted into footnotes, I think. Carrite (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve - Simply convert the links to inline citations. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Universities are usually considered notable, so a list of them is entirely valid by WP:L. I agree it needs reformatting (convert into a table, separate out links, provide wikilinks for any unis with an English WP article). --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:22, 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 speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak under criterion G12. (Non-admin closure.) "Pepper" @ 20:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Information technology Bangladesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Massive OR essay Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as copyvio of this page. Tagged for speedy delete, unfortunately some tinkering with the G10 tag means that the AFD tag is now missing from the page. Hairhorn (talk) 17:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, thanks for that. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:26, 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. No evidence of notability presented under WP:GNG nor WP:FILMMAKER. j⚛e decker^talk 04:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe Rossi (film director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Delete per lack of notability established in accordance with general or topical notability guidelines for filmmakers. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 14:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --John (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless Italian-language sources come forth speaking about this young filmmaker and his projects in enough detail to satisfy WP:FILMMAKER. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Note an IP hopper has been repeatedly listing this page on the articles of directors Tim Burton, Woody Allen, Federico Fellini, etc. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NOthing from Italian-language sources --Louisbeta (talk) 07:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He just won at Giffoni Film Festival an award in a section dedicated to amateur short films realized by high school institutes [13]. WP:TOOSOON, I'd say. Cavarrone (talk) 10:55, 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 withdrawn by nominator, with no dissension from only other voice in the discussion.

The zambrano family history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This article appears to be an attempt to create a history of the name Zambrano and to trace the name through history. Unfortunately, it is in such a state of disorder that it is impossible to clean up to anything resembling an actual article. It appears to be mostly a collection of thought and ideas, and text copied from elsewhere (copyvio noted where appropriate), but with no real cohesion. There is no verifiable indication that the name Zambrano refers to a single family, or whether it is simply a common name. The one source that might have provided some useful information proves to be hopelessly confused, indicating that one member of the Zambrano family lineage served Philip I of France in his battle against the Huguenots (Philip reined from 1060 to 1108; the Huguenots did not appear until the 1560s), and goes on to state that the son of that Zambrano went on to serve Charles V of France who reined from 1364 - 1380 (meaning the son loved some 260 years after the father). With such discrepancies, the value of this source has to be seriously questioned, and without this source, this family history is just a collection of people who happen to have the same last name. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zambrano: Now that I have stripped down the article, it has become clear that the information would work much better in the article Zambrano, which would then also talk about the origins.history of the surname rather than just listing of examples. I think this is the best option.--Coin945 (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn Based on further investigation, I have re-evaluated the reliability of this source. When one realizes the source is talking about Philip I of Castile, not Philip I of France, the timeline falls into place. With Coin and myself already looking to improve the article, and other editors welcome to join in, we may well wrestle an article from this yet. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:39, 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jupiter-Avia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Almost no information provided for an article to be considered as such. Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling suggests they don't exist. Msnicki (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources have been added. Google is not the be-all and end-all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't looking for Google hits. I was looking for sources. There aren't any that satisfy WP:GNG. Msnicki (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, as I said, Google is not the be-all and end-all. Sources are not required to be online. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't need to be online but they do have to exist and they need to be about the subject. What sources do you rely on? I don't think they exist anywhere. Msnicki (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – no sources, not very long, and not notable. —Compdude¹²³ 15:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC) Changed my mind. We could keep this article but it needs improvements and expansion. —Compdude¹²³ 23:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources provided, WP:TOOLITTLE, WP:JNN. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out the lack of even one source that's both reliable and actually about the subject and the lack of any reason for possible notability is not an WP:ATA. Msnicki (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flight International is a reliable source, and the claim that an airline has "[no] reason for possible notability" is preposterous. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Googling suggests they did exist just a crap article but no reason to delete. Even two An-24s make an airline. Added a few refs including one from Flight International that proved they existed in 2002. MilborneOne (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - existiance of airline has been verified though reliable sources. Neither the size or the article or its state is a cause for deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What reliable sources??? All I see are mentions of the name, basically nothing else, on a few lists of questionable reliability. Msnicki (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flight International is not a "list of questionable reliability", it is an impeccable source. For a scheduled airline, that is sufficient. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All that shows is that it used to exist. Mere existence is not sufficient to establish notability. If it were, everything would be notable. Msnicki (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For an airline that operated scheduled service, WP:CONSENSUS is that if it can be verified as existing through reliable sources it is notable enough for an article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know where you find support for that claim anywhere in the guidelines. I'm relying on WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage: ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention ..." And from WP:NRVE, "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally." Msnicki (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm relying on WP:CONSENSUS, as explained by Oakshade below. Slavish adherence to the rules in defiance of WP:COMMONSENSE doesn't serve Wikipedia's readers. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:AFDFORMAT, "The debate is not a vote". From WP:DPAFD, "These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy." The important consensus we should be thinking about in this discussion is the consensus we already have in the form of our policies and guidelines. WP:IAR is intended to encourage fast action be taken when necessary. It contemplates emergency responses and simply doing your best to help build useful content: " Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution." It does not contemplate being offered up as an excuse for why an article shouldn't have to satisfy WP:GNG. WP:IAR is not a reason for saying we should have an article on Wikipedia that violates our basic policy of WP:Verifiability: "Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia", certainly not just because WP:ILIKEIT or WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. The only "sources" we have basically only list the name. That's not enough to write an article that can possibly satisfy WP:V. When you invoke WP:IAR, you frustrate constructive discussion with an implicit claim that discussion is unnecessary because you know better and the rules don't matter. Msnicki (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate the suggestion that I think this should be kept because WP:ILIKEIT, and the claim that the article violates the verfiability policy is singularly disingenuous. WP:GNG is a guideline, not a policy, and sometimes WP:COMMONSENSE must be applied and the 'rules' ignored. It is long-standing WP:CONSENSUS that all scheduled airlines are notable, just as all verifiable geographical locations are notable; it's a case where the value of the information to the reader and Wikipedia's remit as a gazetteer call for the article to be retained - an article which, in this case, is indeed verifable through reliable sources; Flight International is an esteemed, published source, and for further verification see this from the International Air Transport Association. Also, while I can't read Russian, this looks intriguing... The article passes WP:V, uses WP:RS, and WP:CONSENSUS is that it is notable, something that no amount of WP:WIKILAWYERING will alter. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've repeatedly cited WP:COMMONSENSE. Have you read it? "There is no common sense ... When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, community foundation issues and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense. Exhorting another editor to "just use common sense" is likely to be taken as insulting, for good reasons." Msnicki (talk) 00:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Bushranger and MilborneOne. Needing improvement is not a reason to delete. Mjroots (talk) 06:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per The Bushranger, MilborneOne, and Mjroots. -- Dewritech (talk) 08:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per all the keep votes above. As for Msnicki question of finding consensus anywhere on scheduled airlines being considered notable, every AfD on scheduled airlines, past or present, have been retained. --Oakshade (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know it was scheduled? Nothing in the sources provided says anything about whether they were scheduled or charter. Further, even if they were scheduled, nothing in the guidelines confers automatic notability on airline just so long as it's scheduled. Nor is the fact that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS particularly helpful guidance on what we should do in this case. What is helpful in deciding notability, which is what an AfD is all about, is to consider the notability guidelines and the sources. And the sources just aren't there. All we have are 3 trivial mentions.

• Keep. Perfectly good article, the airline existed right? So it must be included with as much information as we have, and in this case there are already 3 references, so not an empty article by any means. Speed74 (talk) 07:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the sources or just count them? The airlinehistory.co.uk link is to a page listing 44 Armenian airlines, one per line, giving only the name, operating dates, code and status. It appears they're simply trying to make the list complete, not decide which airlines were actually important. Further there's no "editorial" oversight; this is just a private site owned by a non-notable individual, David Lyall. This is the essence of a trivial mention.

The aerotransport.org link is database query of the planes the airline owned. That's just registry data that likely gets generated the same as if you sold your car. It certainly doesn't demonstrate that any human being at aerotransport has ever taken note of this airline.

And, most ridiculous, the Flight International link doesn't even mention the subject! Really! Go look! It's just a list of airlines but Jupiter-Avia didn't make the list. This "source" isn't a source at all! Msnicki (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really trying to say that the airline "Jupiter Avia" in the Flight reference is a different airline! highly unlikely. MilborneOne (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! Sorry. I really did search in good faith but missed it. Still, the entire Flightglobal mention consists only of "Jupiter Avia 2" on a long, long list of similar entries. That also is the essence of a trivial mention. Msnicki (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm satisfied the company existed and then folded, but this makes them like lots of other small businesses that fail all the time. From Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability: "Inclusion on Wikipedia for the most part means meeting the general notability guideline, which in a summary, requires there to be multiple reliable sources independent of the subject that provide more than just a mere trivial mention." The 3 "sources" provided are trivial mentions, telling only that the subject had 2 planes and where and when they operated, data that the government likely mandated be collected even if no one thought they were interesting. Each source is essentially a directory or online database equivalents where the objective appears to be completeness. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY and it's certainly not a meta-directory of all other directories. From WP:Run-of-the-mill: "In order for such a commonplace item to be worthy for inclusion in an article, there must be sources provided other than those that would source so many others just like it." Msnicki (talk) 17:00, 17 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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andriessen Installatiebedrijf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Non-notable company. Fails WP:GNG with no Google News search hits or Google News Archive hits. Also fails WP:CORP. There may be an issue finding references because of a language barrier. I didn't nominate this article for A7 because I think that the fact that it was founded over 100 years ago as an industrial installation company is a claim of importance. It's weak but a claim, in my opinion. OlYeller21^Talktome 12:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer! 12:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I had tagged it for speedy as advertising but the creator repeatedly removed the speedy tag. Unambiguous promotional page with no notability. Harry the Dog WOOF 19:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: poor spam by 2 SPAs.-- Dewritech (talk) 08:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't delete Please point out one way that this page is considered spam or unbiased and I will make any changes that you request. This is a completely legitimate page about an expanding company that does have outside references (see the articles's talk page). The company is very old, has many employees, and a large revenue. It warrants its own page for all of the above reasons. Sure, it's not going to get looked at 1000 times a day, but it is still an encyclopedic entity and deserves to be here if needed. It is no more delete-worthy than many other existing articles, for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxijet. Wovermeer (talk) 10:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issues with the article are covered at the top of this page. OlYeller21^Talktome 10:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoi Wovermeer. What's needed to establish company notability is multiple significant mentions in reliable sources. For example this article about the new ice rink in Apeldoorn from De Stentor regional newspaper is a start, but it only mentions the company in passing. Industry magazine reports such as this one are sometimes ok, but need to be backed up by more reliable sources. I couldn't find any other mentions in dutch media, so it looks like notability has not yet been reached in thise case, sorry. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 09:25, 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. (non-admin closure)  —HueSatLum 22:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admiralty tug (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Contested prod

Unsourced and the article fails to justify its main premise, that there was a form of ship that could be recognised as an "Admiralty tug". There was an admiralty, they had tugs, we could even write a WP:NOTDIR list article "List of tugs owned by the Admiralty". However there seems to be no evidence or justification to claim that they form a group that's distinguishable from any other tugs. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Oppose deletion. I searched Google for "Admiralty tug" (with quotation marks) and got 8,550 results. Here are some examples: [14] [15] [16] [17]. I therefore assert that there is an identifiable class of vessel "Admiralty tug". Biscuittin (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there is a distinct type of tugs referred to as "Admiralty tugs". This is not defined as "tugs owned by the Admiralty", but rather a grouping of similar vessels that are known by this name. As for the state of the article, AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, that is the sort of news that justifies the article.

Now, got any sourcing for that? An article that claims "There was a distinctly identifiable group of ships called 'Admiralty tugs' also has to show this, with sources." Andy Dingley (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, it doesn't - the sources are only required to exist, not be in the article. However: [18], [19], [20], [21]. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, existence is theoretically enough - however what's the difference between your gHits and a simple reference to "tugs that belong to the Admiralty". This article treats them as a specific class, akin to Leander class frigate, or at least a type such as torpedo gunboat. It even makes definitive statements like there being a bridge house and it being made of wood (neither canvas dodgers, nor steel). Yet nothing so far shows any evidence for these being a type of ship more than mere ownership. How is an 'Admiralty tug' at all distinct from any other tug? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the distinguishing features of an Admiralty tug is that it carries armaments, which an ordinary tug does not. See, for example, Bustler class.[22] Biscuittin (talk) 07:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another feature (I'd have thought) is that an Admiralty tug would be a vessel built for the Navy to Admiralty specifications and for naval purposes, rather than a civilian tug temporarily requisitioned for Navy use; and the analogy would be the difference between the various classes of Admiralty trawlers and the civilian trawlers that were called up during the two world wars.

• Keep. There's abundant evidence that there was a form of ship that could be recognised as an "Admiralty tug", for instance from google books --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sources mentioned by The Bushranger. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - for the reasons above. Kumioko (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bushranger and Tagishmon. (Is this geting SNOWY? Andy, do you feel the issues raised have been addressed sufficiently?) Xyl 54 (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the contrary. It's one of those AfDs that will obviously close as keep (any objections to that are greater than one article), yet it's still a very poor article that fails to justify its main premise.

• We still have no substantial references for the concept "Admiralty tug". A description of some other group (let's hypothesise the Bustler class) as "these were Admiralty tugs" still isn't defining what an Admiralty tug is beyond this class, or if there was such a definable group.

We also claim the following:

• All Admiralty tugs had wooden bridge houses. Really?
• All Admiralty tugs were armed. This is unsourced (without a definition of the set of "Admiralty tug" concerned, then how could it be sourced? I also very much doubt this. Why would the RN need to arm tugs working in Plymouth Sound, surrounded by far more effective warships of every size? Now clearly the Admiralty had many tugs, many of which were or could be armed, however they also had plenty that were unarmed. I still don't see a concept of "Admiralty tug" in the same way as "torpedo gunboat", and any more specific than "tug". Andy Dingley (talk) 16:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; the article could do with a re-write, for a couple of reasons. But if you are resigned to it being kept, is it worth discussing how to fix it on the article talk page, rather than here? (I've replied to your points there) Xyl 54 (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per above. But the article may require cleanup and copy editing according to wiki policy. Additional reliable references would be nice. --Bharathiya (talk) 19:36, 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 Freddie Mercury#Portrayal in film. (non-admin closure). Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 02:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

It's slated for 2014. Should be too soon. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 11:51, 13 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 13. Snotbot  t • c »  12:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I heard something about this film the other day about who is to play Mercuries wife, however I think at this present moment in time this article should be *Deleted and recreated when more is known Seasider91 (talk) 12:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep; full disclosure I started the article: Notable project with plenty of media coverage (already), spearheaded by notable people. Let this article snowball, there is already additional information to add. --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. "Strong Keep" huh. Are you saying that cos you're the creator and you're biased, and don't want your page to be deleted? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Careful BTC. Being its author and having a personal conviction in the topic's notability, User:Another Believer is quite naturally allowed to opine a reasoned "strong" keep. Did you notice also, that even when wishing his contribution be retained, he has below also stated he would accept a redirect over flat-out deletion? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 14:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay. Sorry. Just my opinion you know. No offense. --Bonkers The Clown (talk) 05:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it doesn't meet WP:NFF, from which I quote: "there is no 'sure thing' production". No prejudice to recreation if and when principal photography begins and notability can be more assured. Ubelowme (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have no objection to a re-direct over deletion, as discussed below. Ubelowme (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/Request: Please consider re-direct over deletion to preserve the article's history. I would still argue that this article could simply be expanded and snowball over time, but if others think the article's existence is too early at this time I request preservation (re-direct) over deletion. Why remove verifiable information if the article will just crop back up in the near future? --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  a valid and reasonable request. See below. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Sacha Baron Cohen for now. Nearly all of the references so far appear to concern Cohen. There's little material yet about other aspects of the film. This article can certainly be recreated when more reliable sources concerning the film itself are available. §everal⇒|Times 18:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Sacha Baron Cohen#Future projects Freddie Mercury#Portrayal in film where this topic is already mentioned and sourced, AND can grow accordingly. Right now the topic is TOOSOON and fails WP:NFF for a separate article... BUT we do have enough per policy for it to be mentioned at the Sacha Freddy Mercury article, even if not yet meriting its own article. I appreciate the author defending his work above and his wishing the article to grow over time. I would encourage it being returned to him in the meanwhile for additional work as a userspace work-in-progress. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed mind as to location for a redirect. 14:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. The working title for a film that is barely in preproduction, if that? Far too speculative to merit an article. But if the article title is kept, the proposed merge/redirect target is clearly wrong. Actors come and go in projects this nebulous (the recent not-any-longer-Lindsay-Lohan Lovelace bio being a perfect example), and the target should very obviously be its eponymous subject. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. The topic is premature for a separate article. But WP:WAX arguments aside, the redirect was suggested simply because current coverage is about Sacha Baron Cohen and his involvemnet in the planned project which is searchable under its "working title". Policy specifically instructs how, if properly cited, coverage of anticipated events may indeed be covered somewhere within these pages... even when not meriting a separate article. If your prediction of Sacha's involvement evaporating or the project cancelling proves accurate, that section of his article can be edited to indicate his original involvement and why he was no longer involved. If a new actor replaces him, then we will have cause for a new redirect target. If the title changes, we create a new redirect. Simply requires regular editing, and we DO have an editor above interested in keeping track of his contribution. Redirects are cheap and serve our readers. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed my mind above as to redirect target. As the topic of the possible film is Freddy Mercury, no matter who ends up playing him, Freddie Mercury#Portrayal in film is a better choice. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 14:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment But redirects always swamp the material in the target article. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  No... that would be a merge. A redirect simply sends readers to whatever location merits a mention per policy. As sources speak about Cohen in relationship to a "possible" film on Freddy Mercury, a mention of that is suitable at Sacha Baron Cohen#Future projects. All a redirect does is send readers there. No more. No less. HOWEVER... I now think that a redirect to Freddie Mercury#Portrayal in film is the better place to redirect. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 14:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh yeah. Being somewhat amateur, I have indeed confused merge and redirect. A real thank you for your kind enlightenment. BONKERS, (clown talk) 11:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brave (2012 film). As a regular matter, I'd say a film two years away from release is rarely notable. But there are exceptions when a film is being well-covered already. Deletion serves no purpose. This one appears notable even if not made, as it was a well-covered planned movie.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Major Matt Mason (film)? Another well-sourced planned film, but consensus was that it was too soon, release date also TBA 2014. --Bonkers The Clown (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Careful about WP:WAX. Each AFd and each topic is judged on its own merits. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:40, 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 delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Urbana Kolkata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Article appears to be written like an advertisement, violating WP:NOTADVERTISING. It also violates WP:CRYSTAL because it contains unsourced predictions and speculations about an upcoming building. No references in the article and almost all the external links in it appear to be spam and used manly for promotional purposes. Lack of notability is another issue. jfd34 (talk) 10:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Seems impossible to find anything of substance online about this proposed(?) building, outside of real estate listings. Definitely not of any great note at the moment. Sionk (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL if the subject is true what it claims then it will have coverage later on and an article can be created, if it really becomes notable as claimed. --DBigXray 20:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable as of now. If the said thing happens; If reliable sources available at that point of time, then one can always re-create the said page again with reliable references as per wiki rules. So delete for now. --Bharathiya (talk) 19:06, 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. Previous AfD closed as Keep only three days before this nomiation was undertaken. A ((trout)) (zombie trout, maybe?) to the nominator for the, intentionally or not, WP:POINTy nomination. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Not a notable topic. Memes don't get their own WP list. Clegs (^{engage in rational discourse}) 08:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Zombie (fictional). It isn't notable itself, being a list of news events with no lasting significance (the coverage is generally lighthearted and not very prominent). One reason reason to keep it would be to preserve information on a series of related events that aren't themselves quite notable, but the important ones e.g. Miami cannibal attack (and I've heard Luka Magnotta in this context) have articles. Adding it to the page on zombies in fiction would preserve the content, while putting it in context - there have been various real-world zombie-related events (e.g. 2011 CDC warning about zombie apocalypse) which should be tied together and this could be done in Zombie (fictional)#Government_and_media_response. Unless of course these events do presage an upcoming zombie apocalypse, in which case they can be merged into 2013 zombie apocalypse. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Colapeninsula. Not notable in and of itself, but probably worthy of a mention. Equivamp, Person Who Is Correct^(talk) 14:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The whole thing smacks of WP:SYN, and the topic itself is just a freak interaction between copycat crimes and selective perception. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Dr meetsingh  Talk  18:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]