< 3 June	5 June >

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

The result was keep. No-one recommends deletion other than the nom, whose argument is a WP:VAGUEWAVE argument to delete. (non-admin closure) →B music ian 02:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martin O'Reilly[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO MJ94 (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG - a google scholar source for "Martin O'Reilly blind piper" turns up multiple sources. There's a section dedicated to him on page 239 of Francis O'Neill's Irish minstrels and musicians from 1913.[1]. O'NHeill's text is also featured here with a photo[2]·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Personally I know very, very little about Irish pipers, but the 1913 book that is copied by a source currently cited in the article[3] can also be found at GBooks, and it seems to verify much of the content here[4]; given that this material in turn cites a variety of press reports about O'Reilly, it seems possible that he was, in fact, covered by substantial independent reliable sources of the time, even if those are not easily found on-line. Cf. WP:OFFLINE, FUTON bias. So this may be worth further consideration. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Without saying yea or nay - I usually don't vote when an article I created is considered for deletion, trusting instead to the good judgement of my fellow Wikipedieans - this is one of a series of articles on Irish musicians from the 12th-20th centuries that I am creating. Information on them does exist, but it is not easy to obtain. Given that music is such an important part of our culture and heritage, I would ask you to give it your best consideration. These people left little enough trace as it is, and facts of their lives are far less well preserved than more worthy (sic) politicions and rebels. Yet they also served. Is mise, Fergananim (talk) 05:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Except for the 1913 publication already mentioned I see that Reilly has a short chapter in Hidden Galway called A blind piper, he apparently won prizes and is talked about as "well known" and one of the "great Galway pipers". Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Gods, No Masters[edit]

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

I feel this material would be better merged into the Anarchism article. I think having a stand-alone article for what, essentially, is just a phrase used by a group is a bit OTT. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It's as notable as "An Injury to one is an injury to All" which also had a focused attack against it (articles for deletion nomination). The phrase is from 1912 and has lots of history. Many references are made to this motto and its use is international.TurtleMelody (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to consider the merits of each subject individually, rather than yelling "well they got away with it; so should I!". I'm not saying that the term is bollocks or not notable or anything, just that I think the best way to organise this content on wikipedia is to include it in the parent article (Anarchism) rather than in an obscure off-shoot. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 02:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, your argument would have greater merit if the anarchism article were the appropriate place for this slogan, but it is not. A more appropriate location would be a list of anarchist slogans. It would not do to clutter the anarchism article, which is currently at GA and will hopefully be FA ready someday, with the minutia of anarchist political culture. --Cast (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 07:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The slogan is pretty widely documented: 400,000 hits in GoogleEverything; 4,000 hits in GoogleBooks. Merging into the Anarchism article isn't quite right because it was also used by early 20th c feminists. The article is a bit short now, but could be substantially expanded. --Noleander (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The phrase is certainly notable enough for the wiktionary, although even there I think the French ni dieu ni maître is more common. But what is there to say about it other than that Auguste Blanqui coined it in 1880 and that other people have used it as a slogan since, or modified it? I don't see any discussions devoted to the term itself on Google, just some people wondering where it came from. Word origins and usage are part of dictionary entries, not encyclopedia ones. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 16:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you just buttressed the argument for Keep :-) I had no idea it was coined earlier by a Frenchman ... that fact should be in the article. That the phrase started in France, came to the US (other countries as well?) and was adopted by feminists, and is still in use by Occupy Wall street-type movements is more than a dictionary entry can provide. --Noleander (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I started with keep and switched when I realized that I was arguing in favor of a dictionary entry. ;-)Etymology, no matter how long, is still just etymology. The fact that the word bad might be derived from the word for hermaphrodite is also doubtlessly interesting (the wiktionary entry goes too far in saying that it "probably" comes from bæddel, since it could also come from bœden, to force or constrain). But we do not have an entry on the word "bad," nor should we. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 19:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand, per Noleander. Significant coverage in reliable sources exists. There is clear potential (and need) for expansion.-JayJasper (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Noleander. Also, I think the title's capitalization is inappropriate, so I've requested a move on the talk page. --BDD (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion.--Cast (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley, Aberdeen[edit]

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

No notability indicated. GregJackP Boomer! 23:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a cursory google search finds nothing demonstrating that this is a well-known area of Aberdeen. -- role^player 23:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added a couple of references showing the area name being used as part of local government subdivisions. As to whether this level of locality is notable, I'm undecided (and it would be good to get input from some Aberdonians). A Google Books search also indicates some historical use of the area name, but not in full view. AllyD (talk) 07:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Speaking as an Aberdonian, I would say that whilst the name is in occasional informal use for the area around Ashley Road and surrounding streets (Ashley Gardens, Ashley Park Drive etc.), and appears in the current electoral ward and community council names, it is not a clearly defined area and not really an established term in widespread use. --Deskford (talk) 09:55, 5 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 Start Something. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sway....[edit]

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

Not speedy-able because of the prominence of the band, but the recording itself is an unremarkable, unreleased track on an arguably good but not historical album. Nothing about the song sets it apart from any other song - not notable. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Sway...." section used to exist on Start Something page itself. But I have created as a separate page because it was not suitable for the page. This was done because of Poiuytre (talk). This user was adding the "Sway...." section to the Start Something page. I have reverted before, but once again put it back up. — ıʇɐʞǝɐdʌɐиƭɐqǝoɟʎouɹqoɐʇ ✉ 00:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Start Something, the parent album. All mentions of the song appear to be passing/trivial/within articles on the album. It does not appear to meet WP:NSONGS or WP:GNG. Gongshow ^Talk 08:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - though the song has been discussed in detail in some of the references, the discussion can be a brief entry in the article for the album. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it gets deleted can semi-protect the Start Something, or at least keep an eye on the page, so the "Sway...." section dose not get added to the Start Something page. Like I said before the only reason that I created it was because Poiuytre (talk) was keep adding it to the Start Something page. — ıʇɐʞǝɐdʌɐиƭɐqǝoɟʎouɹqoɐʇ [✉] 22:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE PAGE AND TRANSFER INFO TO START SOMETHING - I originally wrote what is still all of the content for the track "Sway" intending it to be part of the article "Start Something" - it's corresponding album. Whilst there is enough information to warrant the singles being given their own separate pages I do not think there is (and ever likely to be) enough information to warrant non-singles their own separate pages.

Bearing in mind that I am likely to write a short piece on each individual track (particularly those that are still popular like WSKTOW/THWR etc) which are likely to consist of two-four sentences each, we could end up with each damn track having to have it's own separate page - it's ludicrous.

Despite moving the information back, the user above me "User:Itakeadvantageofyourgoat" once again moved it back into a seperate page. Since then the user "58.164.11.154" has re-created the page for "I Don't Know" (a track only released in America specifically for radio) adding just a mere 2 extra bits of information (two US Billboard charts). Begs the question what the point in starting the article was. The only other articles that the IP address user has edited is the "Sway" article and the "Lostprophets template".

Also I should probably say now that the track is called "Sway" and not "Sway....". I have the CD in my hand right now: it is called "Sway".

And finally I also find it highly strange that in a day Itakeadvantageofyourgoat has gone from being 'Canadian' to being from 'Pontypridd', and gone from being 'Female' to being 'Male'. Again: how bizarre.

Anyway I would suggest the page gets deleted, the information gets moved back into the "Start Something" album page, and thus I can carry on with making improvements to the album page once again. "Itakeadvantageofyourgoat" has still not explained why information about non-album singles should not be allowed on album pages??? Particularly when many albums, including by the likes of The Beatles, Dire Straits etc have this Poiuytre (talk) 13:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the page for I Don't Know (Lostprophets song) which needs deleting as well. The information about the two chart positions should be mentioned in a few sentences on the Start Something page under a "Songs" heading (preferably with the original "Sway" content too) Poiuytre (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide as much information as The Beatles album on the Start Something page it will look reasonable. But personally I do think it should be deleted completely as well. If you read the above talk, I explained why it has been created. Also Me changing location. I am born in Canada, but now live in Pontypridd. And also my gender, I just made a mistake while editing, and din't noticed. The song is called "Sway...." not "Sway". Look at the back cover more carefully It will have four dots next to it. I also own a copy on CD too. For those other people who don't own the CD have a look at this images: [5]. Poiuytre (talk), I don't know which version of the album you have. But the original UK versions have the four dots. — ıʇɐʞǝɐdʌɐиƭɐqǝoɟʎouɹqoɐʇ [✉] 22:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Cute (Japanese band)#History. -Scottywong | converse _ 15:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cute timeline[edit]

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

Timeline? I think a timeline of the activities of this group are not enough reason to hand an article. That could be better explained with prose on the "Career" section of the group's Wikipedia page. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 16:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ‣ If that is what you think should happen, you are describing a merge, not a deletion; you should be pursuing the steps of one of the merge procedures rather than creating an AfD. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 16:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What i ment is that the article about the group already covers what is written on this article. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 16:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The main article appears to have different information in it from this one. Unless I'm missing something, the main article does not have researched and cited release dates of songs and albums, which is what this one is composed of. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 16:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some things written here, as well as refs, doesn't appear on the main article, but i'm going away of the point. The main point is: No timeline is needed. Standard from Wikipedia is to write discographies, not timelines. This timeline have release dates for albums and singles. The issue: Release dates only are not weighted enough to carry a discography article. So, the info on this article shoul be put on the main article, and the article deleted to avoid repeatness. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 17:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If all of the content should be put into the main article, that's a merge rather than a deletion. This is what I'm saying. See Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves: "When a cut-and-paste move is done, the page history of an article or talk page can be split among two or more different pages. This is highly undesirable, because we need to keep the history with the content for copyright reasons. (See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia)." --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 18:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep In my opinion, the nominator failed to provide a valid reason for deletion. And I would like to explain that it is not "better to explain in prose". Do you suggest discussing every single event in the article Cute (Japanese band), with trivial sentences like "performed at", "released on", "held an [autograph signing event]", "announced the [release of the 19th single]"? That's what the timeline will look like. Also, iI created the timeline just today, it's not finished. (Actually, I'm not going to list every single autograph-signing event and mini-concert in the article cause there are too many.) Moscowconnection (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid this situations, i recommend you to work first on your sandbox, and then, when the article is ready, move it into the main namespace. Also, remember that if you'll write an article about singles and albums from an artis or group, you are encouraged to follow the Wikipedia:DISCOGSTYLE, which has been created by consensus. Regards. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 18:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I probably should have finished the timeline before submitting. As for Wikipedia:DISCOGSTYLE, the article is not a discography. It's a list of important events that I don't consider worthy to discuss in the main article. Moscowconnection (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost everything in this article is just a listing of release dates for this group's singles and albums, and those release dates already appear in Cute discography. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. Have you actually read it? I'm adding everything from the Japanese Wikipedia article. Moscowconnection (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although other types of events were added to this article after I posted my original recommendation, I still don't think this article is needed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are The Beatles timeline, The Supremes timeline, Timeline of U2 in the English Wikipedia. I still fail to see any valid grounds for deletion. And I've considerably expanded the article already. Moscowconnection (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Moscowconnection (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Moscowconnection (talk) 21:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid rationale for inclusion, either. DarkAudit (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I showed some examples of timelines because the nominator had argued that "The main point is: No timeline is needed. Standard from Wikipedia is to write discographies, not timelines." (Which I fail to see as a valid reason to delete. As I understand it, a Wikipedia article can be in any format, there are no rules.) Moscowconnection (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article already includes all events from here: ja:℃-ute#略歴 (History section at the Japanese article about the band, which is actually formatted as a timeline), it will include the dates of all concert tours from here: ja:℃-uteのイベント・コンサート一覧 (List of Cute events and concerts) except the joint concerts of the whole Hello! Project (it's mostly done), it also already includes all CD single and album releases. The timeline format is very useful cause it lets telling the history while avoiding repetitive sentences about "announcing", "releasing", "touring", etc. Moscowconnection (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - not such an internationally renowned band as to require a separate timeline. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This group is hardly comparable with the likes of the Beatles or U2. Important release dates etc can be merged into the main group or discography articles where reliably sourced, but unsourced trivia can be deleted outright. No need to leave a redirect. --DAJF (talk) 05:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind explaining how this group is not comparable with the likes of the Beatles or U2 ? --Tow Trucker talk 00:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, I would have heard of this group somewhere, anywhere, before this AfD discussion. DarkAudit (talk) 00:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or to put it more another way, U2 has had 13 albums and 33 singles hit #1 in at least one country. The Beatles have had 35 (arguably, depending on how certain albums are counted that were released with different content in different countries) albums and 30 singles hit #1 in at least one country. Cute has had no #1 albums or singles according to Cute discography, which also doesn't mention them charting anywhere outside Japan. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or History Merge As per the summary style guideline, the creation of spinoff articles should be based on the quantity of encyclopedic content that editors have created, not some subjective notion of whether this is an "important enough" band. But in any case, as that guideline says "In general, information should not be removed from Wikipedia:" and this article contains substantial quantities of both information not present in the other Cute articles and sourcing of facts not present elsewhere. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 12:48, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cute (Japanese band)#History the little that isn't already covered by Cute discography. The main article is not so long, nor the band so famous, that it rates a separate timeline. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cute (Japanese band)#History as per Clarityfiend, but delete most of the overkill details as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. No need to keep a redirect. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTEVERYTHING paragraph 8. A list of events that even Moscowconnection has admitted are not noteworthy enough to include in the parent article should be removed from wikipedia. Struthious_Bandersnatch should have read on in the Editing Policy and considered this material WP:WONTWORK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuaism (talk • contribs) 15:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I say that? I never said it wasn't noteworthy. I didn't want to make the main article too long and boring, so I decided to write a more thorough history in a separate timeline. Moscowconnection (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you said they were "events that I don't consider worthy to discuss in the main article." I confused not worthy with not noteworthy. Please explain why if they are not worth keeping in the main article they are worth keeping in Wikipedia. --Joshuaism (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not statistics or directory information, it's the exact same type of information and level of detail as is presented in the other timeline articles that Moscowconnection linked to above. The idea that this band, unlike others, is not important enough or not famous enough and that changes the rules is based on editors' personal feelings about the topic. (And even besides that, it's the sort of argument I would need to hear from someone who speaks Japanese in assessing a Japanese topic before I would give it credence.) WP:WONTWORK, which talks about unsourced and contentious material, original research, redundancy within an article, libel, nonsense, hoaxes, vandalism, and copyright violations, is completely irrelevant. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 21:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WONTWORK also talks about how "What Wikipedia is not describes material that is fundamentally inappropriate for Wikipedia" and fixing Wikipedia "might include removal of trivia". Just because you collected an indiscriminant list of facts and sorted them into a timeline doesn't change the fact that it is an indiscriminant list of facts. WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a valid argument. I don't need to know English or Japanese to know that this timeline contains too much information. I would condense the timeline into a neat little infographic of bandmembers and their time with the band as is done for other bands (Foo Fighters or Morning Musume, slap it on the Cute page and delete this excess stuff or move it to WP:OTHERWIKIS because Wikipedia isn't everything and not everything belongs in wikipedia. Just because something is good and true and verifiable doesn't mean it belongs on Wikipedia.--Joshuaism (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a contributor to this article. You may think that researching and citing release dates of albums or biographical information about band members (like... when they joined and left the band) or information on tours is worthless indiscriminate trivia but that's what's actually included in specialized print encyclopedias about popular music topics and no matter how hard you try to ignore what it actually says in WP:WONTWORK, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and WP:NOT and cram this article into one of those categories, this is all valid encyclopedic information (and more importantly, I would say, sourcing information) and there is no justification to not preserve it in one way or another. Wikipedia is the place to put encyclopedic information; it would make no sense, nor should anyone be compelled, to start an encyclopedia of popular Japanese music on Wikibooks or something of that sort and move it there. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 22:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then please move this material to a specialized pop-music encyclopedia where it belongs and out of the general use wikipedia. We shouldn't be tying our hands in a wikibureaucracy just because What Wikipedia is not does not anticipate or specifically address every WP:BADIDEA out there. I'm not saying this kind of information does not belong online when I say it doesn't belong on wikipedia. I'm just saying there are other creative outlets and community sites that can better use the information. There are appropriate wiki's out there for fancruft. Big Jimbo made wikia just for this type of material.C-ute is already part of the Hello Project pages at wikia. Or you can take it to generasia and link to those wikis in the wikipedia external links for C-ute. But let's not bloat up our free encyclopedia with trivia and dear diary entries just because there is no guideline that specifically states in exact words what is going on in this specific case. Please understand the spirit of wikipedia's guidelines and make our wikipedia as concise as possible, and find an appropriate alternative outlet for this information and promote it there. --Joshuaism (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am not a contributor to this article. I am a member of the Wikipedia community who has been working on this encyclopedia for easily five times longer than your account has been active and I really do not appreciate it when editors such as yourself deceptively cite policy in pursuit of getting their way or realizing their personal preferences. As it says right in the five pillars, Wikipedia is not simply a general encyclopedia. If you turn your nose up at encyclopedic information about pop culture and it is not your preference please simply state that rather than trying to pretend that things like passages about writing policies and guidelines concisely are some sort of mandate handed down from Jimmy Wales that enforces your preferences about what sort of encyclopedia Wikipedia should be.

The reason why you are having such trouble scraping together an argument and have to resort to deceptively implying that information like the dates when members of a notable organization joined and left that organization or the dates upon which the organization released its major artistic works / retail consumer products are the equivalent of diary entries or statistics or trivia is because you do not understand the spirit of the project's policies and guidelines. They are not there as a tool for you to use in any way you please to cudgel other editors into going along with your aesthetic preferences about the length or detail level of articles or which encyclopedic content to exclude from Wikipedia.

Your hands are not tied by other people having different priorities. If you do not like encyclopedic content about pop culture then you should work on other parts of the encyclopedia. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 03:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*yawn*. WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, I don't have to be doing it as long as you to be doing it right. Thank you for pointing out my error about being "as concise as possible" only applying to guidelines and policies. But I'm pretty sure WP:NOTDIARY, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and just WP:NOT in general still apply to this article. You have a different opinion. Everyone is welcome to examine the article and the linked guidelines and come to their own conclusion. Have a nice weekend! --Joshuaism (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm glad that we can at least agree that somehow managing to go into a project page with the header "This policy describes how WP policies and guidelines should normally be developed and maintained" and pull out a quote about concise writing, then present that as applying to the AfD of a mainspace article amounts to "not doing it right".

How long someone has been doing this affects how easy it is to get away with bait-and-switch policy argument gambits on them, of course. But I completely agree with you that how long someone has been working on Wikipedia, what the edit count of their account is, and whether or not their account has an admin flag does not make their opinions more or less important or their arguments more or less valid.

That's exactly why you should not try to plead with others to "understand the spirit of wikipedia's guidelines" and imply that such a spirit endorses your personal opinions. Even if I had turned out to be a Wikipedia newb (in fact, especially in that case) you should not be trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes by representing that content which would appear in a specialized print encyclopedia about pop music is the equivalent of personal diary entries about "every match played, goal scored or hand shaken" by a celebrity or that policies like WP:INDISCRIMINATE which explicitly says that information like the publication dates of songs should be part of articles supports deletion. Misrepresenting guidelines and policies and then saying "everyone is welcome to examine them" by following the links is still deceptive.

Again, if you don't like pop culture content then you should work on other parts of the encyclopedia, not contrive to get encyclopedic content you don't like deleted via tactics like this. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 00:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The timeline is not a "indiscriminant list of facts" that belongs to a "specialized pop-music encyclopedia" as Joshuaism mentioned. The author of the article only included significant parts of the band's history like when their singles were released or the changing of the group's member lineup. He or she rightly did not include real trivia like endorsements of products, appearance on variety shows or non-significant fan meetings. The information in the article is significant, and I welcome Joshuaism to provide concrete examples that proves otherwise.Lionratz (talk) 02:53, 10 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, Tow talk 22:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge Cute is notable enough, since it has significant coverage from the Japanese press, as required by Wikipedia:Notability. There is no guideline that requires the subject in question must be as famous as U2 or Beatles to qualify for a timeline page, as some has argued before. The timeline, could, as Moscowconnection suggested, prevent the history section from being too long. From my experience editing articles on Japanese idol groups, their history section tend to be extremely long since they have so many members and events happening in a year. However, the question we have to ask ourselves is whether the information in the timeline page is better served in the main article. The article is not so long until it requires a split, as per guidelines on Wikipedia:Splitting. Hence, I recommend merging and recreate this article again if the history section gets too long in future. But there is no dispute as to whether it should be kept or not.--Lionratz (talk) 06:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lionrazt, remember something, the fact that Cute is notable enough does not secure that every article about Cute is notable. Remember that notability is not inherited. Here, this debate is about the Cute timeline article, not Cute themselves. Also, i agree with you. There's no guideline that requires the subject be as famous as another; even its an essay called WP:OTHERSTUFF that says the opposite. Each article on Wikipedia might (or must) be treated as a single entity, and avoid comparisons with other articles to prove ar disapprove notability. --—Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 00:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have to pop in to disagree with your parenthetical "must" there: what the relevant guidelines and essay say is that other stuff existing does not solely justify an argument and does not of itself constitute a necessary reason for anything, not that editors have to act as though an article exists in isolation and must avoid any comparison to the rest of Wikipedia. The essay actually says "Sometimes these comparisons are invalid, and sometimes they are valid." --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 01:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might have misinterpreted the context my "must". I agree that other articles serve as examples in any dispute over policies. However, what I trying to illustrate by using "must" is the argument that this band/group is not as famous; hence it should not receive a timeline page is flawed. And to reply Hahc21, yes, I am aware of that fact. My point is that Cute is significant and the timeline is also significant, since the events stated in it is widely reported in the Japanese press as required by the notability guideline.Lionratz (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion: I was responding to Hahc21's "must" in parentheses and agreeing with you, Lionratz, that the argument in question is flawed. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 03:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This nomination illustrates one problem regarding the coverage of Japanese idol groups- the lack of clear guidelines covering this area. Perhaps we should consider drafting proposed guidelines after this nomination is closed.Lionratz (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge as the sensible compromise solution. There is a guideline in practice that we give very detailed coverage only to the famous--any other practice would make us a FANSITE. ANd I am not sure of the advantages of separate timeline articles in any case, except there there is a very long history to present, or a comparison of timelines is appropriate. I fail to see that readers in almost any topic whether those of only mild interest or those greatly interested are benefitted by having a separate timeline article. Sometimes it can be a separate section, in the nature of an outline. Usually, it amounts to he desire to say everything twice over because one likes a subject. Most of this content would fit very well in the main article on the group in prose. DGG ( talk ) 17:05, 11 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. Sources proove notability (non-admin closure) —Hue Sat Lum 15:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google Street View in Latin America[edit]

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

I see no reason to assume this is a valid article on a notable topic. It is nothing but a list of places where GSV is available--mostly unverified, and the existing references are not to reliable sources. I don't dispute the information given in the article, but the fact that no reliable sources appear to comment on this indicates it's not worthwhile noticing. There's not a lot of guidance on the notability of lists, but one sentence in WP:LISTN offers a bit of advice: "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." I don't see such evidence. Moreover, if anyone wishes to know whether GSV is available in a certain area with a certain definition, there's a much better way, error-proof, and always up-to-date: go to Googe Maps and click on the yellow man or whatever it is. Drmies (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as ephemera. As the nom says, the way to find this out is to ask Google, not us. Mangoe (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe a couple of sentences and refs that aren't already in the main Google Street View article could be kept, but the tables that make up most of this article are too general a compilation of data and not encyclopedic content. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 16:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is not only a list. It also contains a series of paragraphs full of sourced information about the project in quite a large area of the world, along with its history there. Presently, Street View can only be seen in two countries in Latin America, but Google has either planned it or is making it in several others, and that is sourced. Yes, most of the info in the charts comes straight from the primary source, but the "ask Google" rationale for deletion does not explain the many media-related sources verifying information outside of the chart. Sebwite (talk) 02:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraphs and their citations are the same as the information about Mexico and Brazil in the main Google Street View article, with the exception of a handful of sentences. Those sentences can be added to the main article. If you want to document stuff like these tables, maybe it would work in a Wikibook of some sort, but it doesn't fit Wikipedia's definition of an encyclopedic article on a notable topic and strays too far into our policy about what Wikipedia is not. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 20:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These sentences that you are talking about are not a "handful." They are actually quite numerous, with 14 inline citations and counting to go along with them. There is no minimum size to qualify something for an article, and even without the charts, this would still exceed a stub. These tables are a bonus for the article, and are included within Wikipedia guidelines, but they are not what is making the article. You might indeed find some of the exact information in other Wikipedia articles, but sometimes, there is good reason for that. Wikipedia is supposed to be an easy place to find information. Also, WP: NOT is not a policy/guideline in itself, but a collection of more specific guidelines. Sebwite (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I pasted the "Latin America" section of the main article into this one and did a diff. The first paragraphs about Brazil and Mexico are identical to what's in the main article with the exception of some formatting changes in the reference templates. I count ten sentences that are unique to this article. One handful, two handfuls, it doesn't really matter. WP:TOOLITTLE applies to a topic that qualifies for its own article under Wikipedia notability rules - stubs are just fine in that case - but as the AfD nominator notes this article doesn't meet the requirements. The article and blog posts referenced do not discuss "Google Street View in Latin America" as a separate topic from Google Street View. (And in fact most don't seem to mention that at all.)

Also, I'm not sure what you're referring to in WP:UNENCYC there because I don't see that phrase anywhere in that page, but it says right at the top of WP:NOT, "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 22:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article contains well-sourced text. Already, it is possible to found lots of sources on Street View for any country that has it. You may not find sources under the name "Latin America," but you will found sources for the two countries online already, Mexico and Brazil, and the ones that will be in the future, Argentina and Chile.Linda Olive (talk) 02:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ‣ I am just noticing that this is one of a set of articles created over the last year or so that are chronicling the roll-out of Google Street View services to different geographic areas and collecting news stories related to Google Street View in those areas. This seems completely unencyclopedic to me: we do not have geographic articles like this that compile data on the roll-out of, say, electrical services or water services or other entire service industries, much less play-by-play roll-out of a single company's services. This belongs on Wikibooks or some other project where synthesis and large-scale data compilation is within scope. But, the discussion may require a conversation broader than a single AfD. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 03:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is untrue that we do not have separate articles on stuff in different countries or continents. If you have read enough Wikipedia articles, you will find quite a large number of subjects that have their own country-specific or continent-specific articles, as they have substantial differences in different parts of the world. It is actually within Wikipedia's guidelines to write articles on topics at a global point of view, and many articles have been tagged because they fail to meet that requirement.

Those who contributed to the main article Google Street View did a good job early on of writing it at an international point-of-view. But article size became an issue. The article had reached lengths above 160K and became quite chaotic. It was slow to load, and impossible to load on old computers or those with weak connections. It was difficult to edit, all while it needed daily edits. It was difficult to navigate. It was time to do something. Splitting it based on geography seemed the most logical thing to do. Sebwite (talk) 04:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that there aren't any articles broken down geographically and I think you knew that. There are, for example, articles dealing with a particular industry in a region or country - the various companies, though usually just the major companies, the overall history of the industry concerned, the interaction with government regulation, the notable persons in the industry, the educational and research institutions and how they're involved in the industry, etc. - all in one article.

What we do not have are articles that are play-by-play chronologies of how one service, from one company, in one part of the world, is rolled out. As I said above we don't even have that kind of giant times-and-places spreadsheet for an entire industry like electrical power distribution.

Massive non-narrative data compilation like this does not belong in an encyclopedia at all, not even in the main article - the reason why you were having problems with browser load time is because you were trying to do this at all in the first place. A massive browser-crippling list of every retail location (or even every city and town) where you can buy Coca-Cola through official distribution channels, and what dates that became possible on, would not be appropriate for Wikipedia either. It's great that you guys are doing all this meticulous research, I respect that, but it belongs on its own database-driven web site or maybe some kind of special reference-type or directory-type Wikibook, which could be linked to from the Wikipedia article about Google Street View. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 05:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThere are enough sources to make this notable. The sources might mention the names of some countries, but Latin America is the official name for that region of the world. Dew Kane (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SUBARTICLE. The main Google Street View article apparently was very long at one time, and it is necessary to have separate articles to make information easier to find and to not confuse readers. Stedrick (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is still very long, because it still contains a lot of nerdy detail which really isn't appropriate. We do not need to report every stupid little detail about Street View's coverage, especially since it changes constantly. Mangoe (talk) 20:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep it civil—there's no reason to call this information stupid or nerdy and it might be appropriate for some sort of Wikibooks specialized reference work—but yes, the only reason the main article was getting too long was because it had this inappropriate-for-Wikipedia content in it chronicling the town-by-town roll-out of one particular service from one particular company. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 21:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good referencing and source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 15:02, 2 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, Tow talk 22:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete along with the rest of the "Google Street View in" articles. I think "inappropriate-for-Wikipedia content in it chronicling the town-by-town roll-out of one particular service from one particular company" sums up the issue well. --BDD (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is someone's opinion. But it is not policy/guideline. The "keeps" throughout this discussion have mostly cited policies and guidelines while the deletes have pretty much said nothing more than it should be deleted or that it is ”unencyclopedic.” Sebwite (talk) 01:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As we established above, WP:NOT is a policy. The specific part of it my argument is referring to is WP:NOTDIR, Wikipedia is not a directory; sorry if that wasn't clear. In the same way that "an article on a business should not contain a list of all the company's patent filings," neither should it contain a spreadsheet of times and locations detailing the town-by-town roll-out of one particular service from that one company. "Unencyclopedic" isn't just a word I'm using for effect, this actually is not the kind of information that you find in an encyclopedia. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 02:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT is not a single policy in itself but a collection of policies. If you look at the WP:NOTDIR section of this page, the only guideline there that may possibly be applicable is #8, but that is only a guideline against a total directory. It is not against a listing meant to give some idea (e.g. major cities). It may make sense to pare down the list, which has been discussed before. At the same time, it is hard to control numerous editors, many of who are IPs, adding cities to the list, though that is not a reason for deletion. If you made the list shorter, it may be a shorter article, but being a short article or even a stub is not a reason for deletion either. Sizes of articles can always change due to a variety of factors, and are never a reason to delete. The list of cities is not the primary purpose of this article either. Sebwite (talk) 04:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So in your objection above you actually meant to say that the argument in question is based on a collection of policies, rather than an individual policy? This is getting into the realm of wikilawyering, as is making up distinctions between a list of patents being a "total directory" while a directory of the places and dates where one service from one company is available is somehow in scope for an encyclopedia.

If the whole reason that the article was split off in the first place was because the original article was too long rather than because this is a topic that is independently discussed in any reliable sources, it's gaming the system to split it because it was bulked up with this sort of non-narrative compiled data content and then insist that the new article must remain as at least a stub. If IP editors are adding directory content to an article then you should remove the content or move it to an appropriate project, not use it as an excuse to split off a new article with a couple of exactly duplicated paragraphs and trivia about dead bodies being caught in Street View images. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 07:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There has already been plenty of discussion to include lists of some of the cities included in chart fashion. While the discussion has leaned mostly toward including only those sourceable by an outside source saying there is Google Street View in a particular city or town (which there are many such articles), there is nothing stopping the numerous editors, many of which are IPs, from inserting additional places. Nevertheless, that is not a reason or delete. Sebwite (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PRODUCT. It says "If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy." That is why this is a separate article. These are a series of articles about a service provided by a company, one that receives a lot of diverse news coverage all over the world, documenting every place where it is. Several users above have explained that the parent article was so long that it was necessary to split it into many smaller articles. Shaliya waya (talk) 04:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle, let's note the subsequent paragraphs of WP:PRODUCT:

When discussion of products and services would make the article unwieldy, some editorial judgment is called for. If the products and services are considered notable enough on their own, one option is to break out the discussion of them into a separate article following WP:Summary style. If the products and services are not notable enough for their own article, the discussion of them should be trimmed and summarized into a shorter format, or even cut entirely.
Avoid creating multiple stubs about each individual product (PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator, Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator, R-36 Explosive Space Modulator, etc.) especially if there is no realistic hope of expansion.

And we aren't actually talking about a narrative discussion or prose about the topic here, we're talking about compiled data tables. I am still curious what the "Keep" !voters would say about pages and pages of tables of locations and dates concerning the availability of Coca-Cola, especially considering that "Coca-Cola in Latin America" gets dozens of Google News and Google Books hits, where "Google Street View in Latin America" gets none. There's probably enough information in collectibles and antiques guides to break it down by size and type of bottle and can and to have articles and tables for other types of collectibles and Coke products, especially if we cut and pasted some duplicate paragraphs from the main article in as well, but doing so would not seem to be exercising editorial judgment. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 05:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you said here about stubs with no possibility of expansion is not applicable here. This article definitely has expansion coming. Already, Google has Chile on its site, so a third country is surely coming at the very minimum. There have also been unofficial announcements or media reports of several others. Even if quite a lot of information is taken out of this article the way things are today, and it is shortened to just a few paragraphs, it'll inevitably grow to be several pages of sourced information within that period of time. Normally, once a country is on Google's site, it comes public within several months. The unofficial announcements can take up to 2-3 years.

As for the issue for there being a lack of GHits, as several others have mentioned, you may not find them by searching the exact title of this article. Other sites do not function the same way Wikipedia does. But if you search "Google Street View"+"[country]," you will find hits for that country. If putting them together like this is such a problem, it is no different from having an article titled "______ in the United States" where the article focuses on that subject individually in several states, and the sources cover it that way. Sebwite (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these tables can be expanded because Google will continue rolling out the service, and that there will probably be more trivia about things like images of dead bodies showing up in Street View captures, I just don't think that this is encyclopedic content that should appear on Wikipedia; I think it should appear in some other project or its own database-driven web site, as I said above. I would oppose an article devoted to compiled data tables about the progress of rolling out one particular product from one particular company in one U.S. state or even a group of states too. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 01:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Google StreetView has attracted substantial media attention in every market in which it is available, including Latin America.--Billhpike (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And when it's available in pretty much every market, then what? Meanwhile, I would need to actually try StreetView in each location to confident that the information is accurate about where it hasn't been introduced yet. That's why I oppose it as ephemera: shortly I expect that the notable information is going to be where it isn't available yet, and that information will have a short lifespan as they continue to expand their coverage. Even pro-forma reliable sources aren't really reliable except perhaps in the very short term, because Google is working hard to make their statements out-of-date. Mangoe (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the future. That can be discussed then. If it gets to the point that every square inch of planet earth is covered by GSV, it can be discussed then whether or not it is worth having a list. But for now, it is found in some places and not others. Plus there is an order to how it has been released, and there are individualities to each location and release. Sebwite (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stella Kae[edit]

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

Notability is lacking. Additionally, the sources employed are either non-neutral, unrelated. or non-relevant. For instance, the first and sixth sources are from the subject's workplace's website and their homepage, respectively; the 2nd source has no details about the subject other than a credit for doing the makeup in the article's pictures; the 3rd source is a dead link; the fourth source is written by the subject; and the 5th source does not even mention the subject at all. MalibuRun (talk) 20:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate: In essence, this person has written a few articles here and there, is one of the thousands of people in LA who does makeup for celebrities and tv shows, and they post on the internet. This person having an IMDB page makes sense. Having a Wikipedia page would only make sense if every single person from the crew of every single tv show and magazine had a Wikipedia article. Whether the article was created by the subject or not, it seems as if it is primarily there for the purposes of marketing and not for the purposes of imparting information that other people might find useful. 20:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MalibuRun (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. I found zero coverage about this person at Google News Archive, and only self-referential and social media links at Google. --MelanieN (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. The sourcing in the article is a mix of unreliable sources, a makeup credit and in the case of the MTV source, Kae isn't even mentioned at all. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Don't see evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 15:51, 11 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hoodtrosexual[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Contested proposed deletion. Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete As the user who originally WP:PRODed the article. Clearly non-notable neologism. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 20:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You were the second one to prod the article. Tsk tsk. :-) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let the self-flogging begin :D -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 17:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of the approximately 50 Google references, none are reliable (and many seem to be the creator's attempt to popularize this neologism). As per Gogo Dodo, Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Ubelowme (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable neologism. Urban Dictionary is thattaway... --------> Carrite (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable neologism. Per above. Acebulf (talk) 01:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism with no evidence of use outside this Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary anyway, but especially not of words someone just made up. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 05:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wholly made-up baloney.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non-notable neologism. Maratrean (talk) 10:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Hoax. Besides the obvious WP:NEOLOGISM problem and open WP:OR in the article, in a google search I found only Wiki mirrors. Unscintillating (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - chances of there are that this is completely a G3 (or OR) and if it is true then no where near to WP:N. →TSU ^tp* 09:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Faceconomics[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. This article represents original research regarding the author's own view of macroeconomics. Mostly a thinly-veiled (or not veiled at all) attempt to promote the author's as yet unpublished book. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As noted by the nominator, original research, and I can find no reliable evidence that this book has been published or that anyone uses this word except its author. Most of the Google links are for various spellings of "Fac. Economics" (Faculty of Economics). Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Perhaps after publication if and when third-party reliable sources write about it. Ubelowme (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable neologism. Seemingly promotional overtones as well... Carrite (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Word Faceconomics is a brand and copyright material. WK: publishes these neologism verbiage to provide clarity. The post is for public use for clarity since, the word have yet to be used mainstream. 170.97.67.112 (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Clearly the IP user doesn't understand the Wikipedia guidelines indicating that Wikipedia is not to be used to promote a concept to bolster its notability or recognition, but rather exists to document concepts that have already become notable by their widespread use elsewhere. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO as noted above, and as a (possible) violation of copyright. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hearts (Windows)[edit]

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

Why is there a separate article for this? It's Hearts on a computer. No real coverage of this. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: My initial reaction was to delete, but I see that this is part of a series concerning components in MS Windows [[6]]. The article is fairly mature in its development, since it does discuss the history of this component in past MS OSs. Also, I see no rationale for deletion based on the nom's statement.Roodog2k (talk) 19:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: You're not wrong, really. But as a component of Windows, this particular implementation rises to notability. However... the article should focus more closely on program itself and not spend so much time discussing the game. That's what the main Hearts article is for. - Richfife (talk) 21:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Because it's part of a series, I'd suggest that you withdraw this AFD and either drop the issue or put together a group nomination for Hearts, Solitaire, Cruel, FreeCell, and any others that you can find. Nyttend (talk) 03:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done so for Solitaire and FreeCell. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all of the comes-with-OS games into a single article. Outside of FreeCell and Minesweeper, the other games are repeating known rules for the physical equivalent and thus unnecessary; there's no notable coverage of those as individual games (I suspect that the whole can be discussed in light of lost time/productivity due to their inclusion in the OS). --MASEM (t) 13:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The focus of this article (IMHO) should not be about the game's rules, although it's worth mentioning. The focus of the article should be about the component called Hearts in the OS. It's a piece of software, just like any other component, and it's development history may differ from other games, especially those that were intorduced in Vista or 7. Roodog2k (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be about the history of the product. That is not demonstrated short of saying "introduced in (Windows version)". Furthermore, video games are generally expected to have some type of reception section albeit for something like this is may be more about its legacy. For Minesweeper and Freecell, heck yes. For Hearts and the other bundled games, nothing's been shown. The articles can still be groups so that we don't lose the information that Hearts was added to Windows at version X, or any other minor details that can be sourced, but a full article is absolutely unnecessary given what is currently and can be found from Google. --MASEM (t) 02:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hearts has been part of Windows for a long time, and just because it's an implementation of a common card game doesn't make it less notable. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 16:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nominator is correct that there's no real coverage, i.e. notability has not been demonstrated. It's a shame, because the role of Hearts in Windows for Workgroups was certainly a notable event in PC history, but this is effectively an unsourced article. Of the two references, Danny Glasser's blog post isn't reliable and the Microsoft primary source simply lists "Hearts game" as a feature of WfW 3.1x, without any description. The "keep" votes from Roodog2k, Richfife and Karimarie are missing the point: it's irrelevant that the subject is theoretically notable if no-one has provided references to prove it. Merging it with other Windows games as Nyttend suggests is inappropriate: Solitaire and FreeCell are independently sourced—and anyway they're notable for different reasons. Masem's merge proposal seems to be saying that it's unnecessary to have an article about any software that is "repeating known rules for the physical equivalent". I think that's too broad but I agree that there's no notable coverage cited. - Pointillist (talk) 22:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I wasn't suggesting any page mergers. I meant that the nominator should nominate all of these games for deletion if he wanted them to be deleted. Nyttend (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry – thanks for clarifying - Pointillist (talk) 08:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep part of a series of Windows related articles about a subject that is notable, even if the article has troubles demonstrating that. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There are simply not enough sources to justify this as a separate article. By combining all of the comes-with-OS games together, a much better article will emerge. Such a combined article does not prevent separate articles on Minesweeper and Freecell if they have enough sources to support them. Eastshire (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Not enough notability to establish a separate article, but certainly enough of a long-standing bundled game to receive a mention on the main OS page. P0150neD r1Ce asian 00:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily sufficient implementation-specific detail to make this worth keeping, for example on NetDDE. Certainly could be improved, and I can imagine a 'Bundled Windows Desktop Games' article that could replace the individual articles, but not a deletion candidate right now. Mcewan (talk) 07:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep http://www.google.com/search?q=hearts+windows&tbm=bks —Ruud 18:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that I've added three reliable sources. I do think it's a bit steep that none of the "keep" !voters bothered to add any citations per the Afd advice (which says "If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination"). I've struck my delete !vote now. - Pointillist (talk) 08:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous mentions in books and on the internet, a classic game available in many editions of the world's most successful operating system, has been around since 1991. Unscintillating (talk) 23:05, 10 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. I'm sorry XB70Valyrie but there's a clear consensus that this article is unsuitable for WP for various reasons. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problems facing airline pilots[edit]

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

This is an unsalvageable personal essay replete with WP:OR. ukexpat (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If this were a personal Essay, there wouldn't be a single citation in it. These is no doubt that if you can't find a single professional airline pilot in the USA that wants their children to follow in their footsteps that the occupation is in trouble. That being said, this is a notable topic which needs definition on wikipedia. I have openly invited fellow wikipedians to help edit this article. I hope I will get more than just a few to do just that. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems the title is too vague, upon reading the article it reads entirely focused on affected airline pilots in the United States. The sources however suggest that this is a subject that is worthy of our attention. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best thing to do here would be just extract the neutral info from the refs and apply it to appropriate article regarding aviaation and delete the NPOV stuff. The Determinator p t c 22:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. looks like a few cleanup issues and maybe a change in the article title perhaps, but it doesn't read like a personal essay and it is referenced.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into airline pilot which is currently a redirect to aviator, but which doesn't deal with the topic well. The topic airline pilot can then be developed into a balanced account of the profession, with a historical and global perspective, to improve on this soapy stuff. Warden (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. Essay (yes Virginia, personal essays can be cited) that is hopelessly WP:POV and WP:SOAPy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an encyclopedic article. I could write "Challenges in the design of injection molded computer monitor chassis", and provide many citations, but it still would not make the topic encyclopedic or notable as a standalone topic under our standards. The fact that this essay is heavily biased is just icing on the cake. Gigs (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although it has proper sources but it fails WP:OR because WP:SYNTH. I agree it reads a WP:ESSAY and therefore it should be deleted. The Determinator p t c 21:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:OR - The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This article is filled with sources. The synthesis is indeed there. It's there to illustrate the full scope of what faces airline transport pilots in the USA. Yes, in that perspective I would agree. The article is heavily synthesized.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. The sources are fitted together to fabricate a synthesis. The wording is inflammatory and the aim is prescriptive rather than descriptive. Nothing here is salvageable as a stand-alone article or as a section merged to Aviator. The author of this material is obviously angry and is clearly wishing enrage the reader. We are not here to do that (see WP:ACTIVIST); we are here to write descriptive text rather than to get a reaction from the reader. If any of the references are worth using elsewhere, for instance at the unwritten article called Airline pilot, I recommend XB70Valyrie stand down and let another writer do the honors. Binksternet (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped short in issuing the fact that tired, underpaid pilots make for an unsafe industry Colgan Air Flight 3407. Do you want to fly on an airplane with a pilot capable of applying for and receiving food-stamps, wiping the sleep out of his/her eyes? I could put that in there too. But I haven't. Perhaps you might be mistaking where the "enraging" feelings that a read, or even yourself for that matter, could be coming from. Clearly the facts of what has happened to this industry in and of its own right is enough to enrage most people, since they rely on air transportation in many of their every day lives. This thought ran through my mind as I created the article. "Am I writing this to make people angry? No. But the facts alone sure could do that." Trying to be constructive, but you have brought up a critical element of the article. Well noted. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because people are voting to delete here doesn't mean they aren't sympathetic to your cause. The problem is that it is a cause, and Wikipedia isn't the place to write persuasive essays. Gigs (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that the article title starts with "Problems facing..." seems to me that it is fails WP:NPOV. At best this could be merged into Aviator as a section of challenges faced recently by commercial airline pilots or with Air Safety where there is a section on "Human Factors". This article does not deal with general problems facing airline pilots. It is an essay on how poorly paid the author perceives them to be paid. BTW, many people find it difficult to have sympathy for a profession where most people make $60k-$150k a year based on skills the government paid them to learn in the military (yes, that's very much my POV). Vertium (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's sad. That right there, is unfortunately the attitude many who don't understand this occupation have. "You're a spoiled military brat". I know you didn't say that, but you implied that this is what many people will think. I just added a section addressing that very false perception. Very few military pilots are willing to leave the safety of the services to take a job as an airline pilot. Very few senior pilots ever see $150K. I can tell you didn't really read the existing article where I've already pointed that out. I know that's your point of view, and your point of view just needs friendly updating, that's all. Most of the dis-assembly of the airlines, and thus this occupation has occurred in the new millennium. You have no idea how many of my new friends think I must be wealthy, when in all reality I have student lenders are coming after me in court since I'm unable to repay my mountain of student loans. $110,00 in all. With amortization I'll pay back over a quarter million dollars. Realistically, I should probably file for bankruptcy until I am making enough money to begin paying for my student loans. My experience is by far not isolated. I started flight training since 2 months before September 11, 2001 when the career still looked half way decent. I emerged from getting my degree at a major aeronautical university and completing my flight training by myself in 2008. And I still have yet to make over $30K in any given year. You are thinking of per-deregulation or perhaps the brief dot-com era where there was a flourish of prosperity. I was talking to a US Airways pilot in the concourse the other day. he told me what pay-scales will reflect. He's been flying a 737 (seating capacity 150) for 23 years and has yet to make more than $83,000 in any one of those years. That's because US Airways kept filing for bankruptcy (once in 2002 and again in 2004) to "remain competitive". Can the article be renamed "Challenges Facing Airline Pilots" then? Sorry about the dissertation. I'll also address your concern of flying fatigued by expanding that already existing portion.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 03:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not unsympathetic, nor do I think anyone is a "military brat" (I was one of those, I recognize the symptoms). However, the very fact that you felt the need for the dissertation illustrates the POV aspects of the article. This article is to advance a "cause" and is not written in to be encyclopedic, which is the reason for my delete vote. Vertium (talk) 09:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Imzadi 1979 → 02:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOR The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. There is only one statement in this article that is not linked directly to a citation. Further per WP:NPOV It is not the responsibility of any one editor to research all points of view. Am I missing some point here?--XB70Valyrie (talk) 04:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made numerous edits and vast additions. Please read full article before voting.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 07:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-neutral soapbox article, not really an encyclopedic subject. MilborneOne (talk) 10:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. This article is the very definition of both. Roodog2k (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article though well intentioned is WP:SYNTH and Wikipedia is certainly not about promoting campaigns of any sort unless they have been reported by numerable third party sorces.Theroadislong (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Looks like a personal opinion essay, rather than an actual article. —Comp dude¹²³ 16:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My "delete" !vote remains, even after the June 5 changes to the article. I see more of the same angry text violating NPOV. Binksternet (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete I've moved the article HTML to my User Page. I'm honestly sick of trying. You'll find this experience will dramatically reduce my participation in this "society". But you guys are all experts unwilling to give a hand and probably couldn't be more thrilled at my announcement.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, it's important to think about whether the content you are adding really belongs in an encyclopedia. That's basically what Wikipedia is, an encyclopedia. It's perfectly fine to move an article to your userpage if it's going to be deleted. If you are committed to working on it more and improving it to gain a more balanced viewpoint, go for it. It's generally advised to start working on a new article in your userspace (that's all pages that have the prefix User:[your username]) and then move it to an actual article once you think it's ready. —Comp dude¹²³ 23:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As requested, I've re-read the article completely and my vote does not change. This isn't about the lack of citations - which can be included equally in a personal essay as they can be in an encyclopedic article. This remains a "cause" essay, heavily laden with a POV and isn't suitable for WP. There's no doubt that the author is passionate about this topic, which seems to be contributing to it's lack of balance. Vertium (talk) 10:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of progcore bands[edit]

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

Misleading list of bands. Of the bands listed not a single one uses the word "progcore" to describe its genre. role^player 18:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not a recognized musical sub-genre. Carrite (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lists must have clear criteria for membership. There's no criteria listed and not even an article progcore. Is progcore real? Is it notable? I think not. What does it mean? Who knows. (progcore was A7 deleted.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The musical genre is a made up neologism whose own article was already deleted. There's no real point in an article containing a list of bands in a made up genre. Rorshacma (talk) 18:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bader tv[edit]

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

No independent sources, and Manta says that the company has 1-4 employees, and thus Wikipedia's corporate notability guidelines are not met. Also, the article is written by user:mikeleventhal who states that he is VP of the company, which is a conflict of interest.

DELETE Fails WP:CORP, COI violation, only purpose seems to be promotional/advertising--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 18:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Googling suggests they don't exist. Wikipedia is not for WP:ADVERTISING. Msnicki (talk) 23:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The company can be verified (check out www.badertv.com) and can reasonably be expected to have more than 4 employees based on their worldwide offices. However, that alone doesn't meet all the requirements of WP:CORP Vertium (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: spam, mainly composed by one SPA, GNews: zero. -- Dewritech (talk) 09:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it needs a lot of refs and google doesn't help much in that. The facts in the article are in question and I can't find sources supporting them. It fails WP:GNG. →TSU ^tp* 09:44, 11 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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 23:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Leventhal[edit]

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

Autobiographical. Started by the subject of the article. Only one outside reference. Vertium (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7 (lack of significance). I could find no independent sources, and Manta states that the company of which he is VP has 1-4 employees. This is likely an autobiography, considering that the article creator's is User:mikeleventhal. I am also going to submit an AfD for Bader tv. NJ Wine (talk) 17:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, couldn't find any verifiable independent sources, only citation is to a wedding announcement--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 18:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Clearly an WP:Autobiography. Msnicki (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:AB. -- Dewritech (talk) 17:29, 9 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. Pretty overwhelming consensus that this news story doesn't have the lasting notability required for a standalone article. Split 70/30 in favor of deletion, and quality of the arguments is high. NJ Wine's argument is particularly compelling. Kinda wish I hadn't read the article after reading through the AfD discussion though. -Scottywong | verbalize _ 16:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orville (cat)[edit]

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

Facepalm I searched "Orvillecat" in order to watchlist in case someone ever had the dim idea to make an article, only to find it was already here. The encyclopedia is not a newspaper, we do not chronicle every half-baked, person-of-interest, funny-story-of-the-day out there. Ladies who walk into mall fountains and kids who videotape their father slapping them make a media splash for a few days, then disappear without a trace. If in a few months this becomes some epic "roflcoptercat" meme, then sure, revisit it. For now, it has hit a few blips in a google news search, one of which is just gawker. But this isn't about sources per se, it is about WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:EVENT and an overall WP:NOT in general. This is not what the Wikipedia is for Tarc (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, you'd delete Barack Obama if it weren't for his Twitter notability. Spoilsport. PS: It's been written about in Dutch, American, Canadian, and German media (reliable sources all of them) so you'll have to drop the "few blips" argument. ;) Drmies (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, I can see why a newspaper would cover this abomination, but it isn't enough to satisfy notability. Maybe we need a WP: You have GOT to be kidding me category for delete. ;) JoelWhy? talk 17:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're obviously not familiar with the future of Wikipedia: if an article has references, it stays. This cat is obviously notable worldwide. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Establishing notability has to be more than "X sources == article creation", though. We have meta concerns of scope and depth to consider; again, look at the case of the woman-in-fountain and how many news stories ran that day or in the next few days, but then vanished by the next news cycle. An encyclopedia shouldn't be covering the ephemeral. And for the record, I'd like to see that twitter page there canned too. Tarc (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the worlds first taxidermy / UAV hybrid, that's a significant advance for Art & Science! How could this possible not be notable? --JasperWallace (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is appalling to me on personal level, but there are over four thousand different mainstream media publications reporting on this subject. It seems to meet the general notability guidelines too. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article has plenty of independent sources, but that is irrelevant for a news story. Because Wikipedia is not a newspaper, stories like Orville the cat are assessed per WP:EVENTS, which has 5 criteria.

(1) Lasting effect (most important criterion) -- An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation. For example, the murder of Adam Walsh ultimately led to the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, among other notable subjects. Fail. Orville has no lasting effect in any area of life (e.g., legal, artistic).

(2) Geographical scope -- "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group. An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable. Coverage of an event nationally or internationally makes notability more likely, but does not automatically assure it. By contrast, events that have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world or a significant widespread societal group are presumed to be notable enough for an article." Fail While this story has been reported around the world, it has not had an impact anywhere in the world.

(3) Depth of coverage -- "An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable. The general guideline is that coverage must be significant and not in passing. In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like Time, Newsweek, or The Economist), and TV news specialty shows (such as 60 Minutes or CNN Presents in the US, or Newsnight in the UK)." Fail This story has not received any deep, analytic coverage regarding its cultural impact.

(4) Duration of coverage -- "Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle. The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance. Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable." Fail It’s too soon to tell, but there is no evidence that Orville will have long-term coverage.

(5) Diversity of sources -- "Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted." Pass There has been domestic and international media coverage of this event.

Considering that the Orville (cat) article fails 4 of 5 criteria, and particularly has no lasting effect, which is the most important issue in assessing the notability of events, this article should be deleted. NJ Wine (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RECENTISM. This story is a news spike if the is still around in a year then the article can be restored and enhanced. It can also be moved to Wikinews if it isn't there already. MarnetteD | Talk 02:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Once notable, always notable, but you need real, sustained, independent coverage for notability in the first place. A group of news stories all at about the same time about an otherwise unremarkable subject is never enough for notability. Nyttend (talk) 04:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lots of international news coverage, guessing now if it's a news spike is WP:CRYSTAL. Deleting because it offends our sensibilities makes Wikipedia:Systemic bias worse. Using dead pets is nothing new for Dutch "artists." [7] CallawayRox (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. CallawayRox (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It gets ample coverage in reliable sources, which write in detail about it, showing images and even video. Dream Focus 17:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NJ Wine's discussion of WP:EVENTS. If this particular piece of art winds up having actual lasting notability, then I would see nothing wrong with recreating this article then. At the moment, however, the article's sources are nothing but a bunch of "interesting tidbits of the day" type news coverage, with nothing to show any lasting notability. Rorshacma (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this falls under WP:NOTNEWS, Wikipedia doesn't catalog every silly stunt someone does. - Ahunt (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have quite a lot, though. Which stunts become history is an interesting question.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had totally forgotten about Balloon boy. Thanks for reminding me. Cigar guy was new to me: that's the future of Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Milowent. That response. Five stars and a good-natured bravo. That's a masterpiece of linksmanship. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think these other news stories fall into the premise of WP:INN, which states the following: The presence of similar articles does not necessarily validate the existence of other articles, and may instead point to the possibility that those articles also ought to be deleted. Inclusion is not an indicator of validity, notability, or quality because any individual may edit a page. For example, if there are 20 garage bands that have articles on Wikipedia, it is not a valid indicator that any other garage band deserves an article. Orville (cat) as well as some of these other articles deserve deletion. NJ Wine (talk) 03:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It goes both ways, NJWine. The continued existence of these articles, and keeps at AfD in many of those cases, is also food for thought. Indeed, the enduring notability in recorded history of what some consider absurd things for hundreds of years is what interests me. Sure, you could put some of these up for AfD if you wished, but there are thousands more of them. You could nominate Sam Patch, he was truly just an idiot who jumped off a few things, until he died doing it. Yet he is still written about 180 years after his death.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Milowent, I agree that it's interesting what events get publicity for centuries. However, it is not our job at AfD to debate whether an event should have gotten media coverage, but rather whether that coverage makes the event notable or not. Sam Patch had plays and poems written about him, and became an eponym for people who jump into Niagara Falls, and thus that article at minimum passes the depth of coverage and duration of coverage criteria of Wikipedia's event notability guideline. If cat-helicopters become a craze, and it's given the name "Orvilling", then Orville (cat) will be notable. However, at the current time, the story is not notable, and it's too soon to have an article on it. NJ Wine (talk) 04:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NJWine, we are the choosers of Orville's fate! Plays, poems, tributes, please join me!

Be thy son of Adam or daughter of Eve
God bestowed upon us the power t'grieve
For dearest furry friends flow tears of brine
And inspiration to create artwork most divine:
The helicopter feline

Struck by a car whilst chasing a rat
Orville's owner vowed to create "half machine, half cat"
Disembowled, stuffed, preserved in formaldehyde
Technology made him one sweet flying ride
(And saved on cremation costs as an aside.)

Alas, Orvillecat may not be a lasting tale
Despite fifty citations in the Daily Mail
Translated to myriad languages without fail
(Not to mention eight separate versions in Braille.)

But if we write poems and plays and musical themes,
And perhaps some lolcats and Ceiling Cat cross-memes
Orville, he may, he may yet live on
And we'll google him for centuries a yonder and anon,
And future wikipedians will wonder
Just what drugs we were on.

--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Guessing" now that this is a news spike has nothing to do with WP:CRYSTAL, which is a policy that governs article space content, not Wiki space argument :). One thing that is certainly true is that Wikipedia is not the news, and it is not speculation to note that coverage on this is all very recent. It is as such impossible to gauge whether it truly constitutes long-term notability or a short-term spike in the news over a considerable curiosity. Obviously, recreate this if it's still generating interest over time, but until such point that that can be established this is a one-off news story about a one-off event/happening/curiosity. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NJ Wine seems to hit it right on the mark, especially concerning this event's 'lasting effect'. -- Lord Roem (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: News coverage has slowed down not much. There is an outstanding offer of €100,000. Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built CallawayRox (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't do much to address WP:EVENT concerns as detailed above, and that house essay is a tired ARS trope that IMO doesn't mean much of anything. Tarc (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just because any body can edit wikipedia it doesn't mean that any old B******s can go in.Petebutt (talk) 03:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I saw coverage of this in a newspaper in London the other day and thought it was a good story. As this is being presented as a work of art, it seems quite comparable with The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living - the notorious work of Damien Hirst. See also cat organ - a medieval equivalent which has lasted quite well. People may well dislike such stuff but it is our policy not to delete for this reason. Note also that WP:EVENT is irrelevant because this is an objet d'art not an event. An event would be something like Diamond Jubilee of Elizabeth II or Transit of Venus, 2012 - occasions and incidents which are all over our front page, just like they are every day. Warden (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lol a "work of art", what bullshit. It is an event ("man attaches copter blades to dead pet"), just as the girl who hiccuped for years was a story about the hiccuping and not the girl, just as the woman-falling-in-fountain is about that and not the woman herself, and so on. This is why we don't cover pop media trash; it flares for a few days before disappearing into yesterday's "remember that meme?" occasional recollection. Tarc (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Play him off, Keyboard Cat... Warden (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minus the first sentence (no need for that), I agree with Tarc. No one would have known about 'Orville' had the helicopter event not occurred. Unless the article becomes a coatrack for this later event, I don't see how there's "lasting" notability about the animal itself. Lord Roem (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not temporary. You don't need to prove anything is lasting. This isn't an event, this is a thing, and this thing gets coverage. Dream Focus 18:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are correct that notability is not temporary. But I disagree that this isn't an event. Additionally, I think the 'Keyboard Cat' example from above is actually helpful here. Orville the cat is 'famous' because his owner made him into a helicopter toy. Orville himself then isn't the item of focus, but the action of the owner. In the context of the Keyboard Cat, this is important in two ways. First, that was an event - the upload on Youtube - that made it famous; only after the fact and after time could we judge that; second, in that example, it was the cat itself that was interesting. Here though, its just the thing the man does, not the cat. I feel that this is a distinction with a difference - in one, a character does something which eventually becomes part of the cultural 'mind', the other is a similar event, but one which shows (at this point) no viability of being long lasting. The end result is that we don't keep a repository of all memes or strange local stories; rather, we keep those who truly leave a lasting cultural impression. Lord Roem (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not some routine YouTube stunt. The reason this artwork is famous is that it was exhibited at the KunstRAI which is Amsterdam's annual festival of contemporary art. This exhibit attracted press attention and it then seems to have been traditional media which has made it a big story. The artwork seems like other famous modern art works which generate public outrage such as the notorious pile of bricks at the Tate. If you don't like modern art, you are not alone, but this does not give you the right to censor it. Warden (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second! I just came to an amazing find! It seems the source linking to the artwork (from 1989) is not the same as the sources discussing the recent 2012 story. There are two different stories here! One, the older artwork, which very likely is notable; the second, the wholly new media story about an American man and what he did to his cat. So... I think we need to *really* take a step back here. The cat-copter that is in the museum should be made into a separate article. Colonel Warden, thoughts? -- Lord Roem (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's only one cat here and the artist is Dutch not American. Perhaps you're confused because all you've seen is the YouTube video where the artist, like most Dutch, speaks excellent English. Please read the article and the copious news sources. Warden (talk) 05:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1989 was wrong. Back then, we didn't have the technology to rebuild the €100,000 cat. CallawayRox (talk) 18:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From [[WP:N: "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time..." (bolding mine) LadyofShalott 18:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionists are constantly adding creepy stuff like that to try to force us to conform to their rules but it's our policy that guidelines are not laws and that they should reflect our actual customary practise. And it is abundantly clear that Wikipedia does not wait for topics to mature over time but reports breaking news so routinely that we have a section on the main page called In the News. When I looked just now, this contained a recent plane crash, a recent massacre, a recent parade, &c. We even have templates like ((current)) which says "This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.)). So, that clause in WP:N is clearly a dead letter. Warden (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability guidelines trump drive-by tagging, sorry. We already had to take the ARS-specific tag away from your wiki-project, Warden. If this is an attempt to misuse generic article tags to improperly derail an AfD, then we can look into that behavior too, y'know. Tarc (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, no need for the ad hominem. If you disagree, respond directly on point. So my reply would be: Warden, could you look at a recent edit of mine to the AfD? I think I have a compromise position to divide the article to the European cat-copter and the American one. This may be a better foundation on which to argue on inclusion, since we're talking past each other about different things. -- Lord Roem (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a drive-by editor making a snap-judgement after taking a cursory glance. I have researched the topic and its background and so am quite sure that there is no "American one". A sensible way forward using ordinary editing, rather than deletion, would be to develop this into an article about the KunstRAI, as we currently don't have one. This is an annual event which has been running for over twenty years now and so is well-documented in numerous books about the art world, as it's Amsterdam's most prestigious art show. This article might contain a section about the 2012 event and say that Orville was a prominent exhibit that year, attracting a lot of international attention. Development in this way would be constructive, building upon the work of the first editors as recommended by our editing policy. Warden (talk) 05:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to do with what we're talking about here if you wish to develop an article on an entirely different subject, feel free, But the subject of the "man who turns dead cat into remote control heli" is what we're dealing with here, a funny news-of-the-weird story just like dozens of others that get deleted day in and day out. You have yet to construct an argument to refute the WP:EVENT analysis elsewhere in this discussion. Tarc (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NJ Wine has done a fine job of explaining how this fails to clear the bar, so no need to regurgitate. It is /amazing/ the roadkill people will scrape off Google News and think appropriate to try and include here. Amazing. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG - a topic (half cat, half machine) has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Warden's analysis. I blame it, but, as said by CallawayRox, deleting because it offends our sensibilities is just a form of systemic bias. Cavarrone (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not see a call to delete that is based upon "it offends sensibilities". Perhaps I missed one in my quick skim just now, so if there is one of those votes feel free to point it out. It would not, however, invalidate the majority of the deletion calls that are grounded in established notability guides though. Tarc (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The IDONTLIKEIT nature of this AFD has been obvious from the outset, starting with your use of the ((facepalm)) template. The nomination is full of opinionated value-judgements and so are the delete !votes which condemn the topic using loaded language such as "abomination", "roadkill", "silly stunt", &c. This topic is clearly been condemned not because of its lack of notability but, on the contrary, because of its great notability which caused you to look for articles about it. We have plenty of other articles about other similar modern artworks such as Bullet Hole and My Bed; there seems to be no problem with these and so a moral panic is not warranted. Warden (talk) 10:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - You have greatly misread the sentiments of the calls to delete if that is what you take away form it. My initial facepalm was for the stupidity of article creations that are based on the top entry of Google News for the day, not for the subject matter itself, a subject which has nothing to do with art, btw. The ARS mentality of rush rush rush to chronicle ephemeral pop media is a mission that is at odds with a project to build an encyclopedia. We have seen this mentality be turned away time and time again in AfDs lately. Tarc (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"turned away time and time again in AfDs lately..." LOL, you don't watch enough AfDs, not to mention article creations never challenged. Creating articles is hardly at odds with the goal of building an encyclopedia, regardless of the subjective judgments which delete some but not all articles like this one. You created The Internet Defense League of all things, based on a one time minor flurry of press coverage, we don't facepalm your creations because its rude.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a)I pay attention to the important ones, unlike some who watch afd like a hawk, b) creating bad articles is at odds with encyclopedia-building, c) feel free to nominate the IDL if you like, that'd be an interesting table-turning discussion for a change. --Tarc (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reason to nominate it, it doesn't harm anything by existing. But neither did Ate my balls.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To repeat unchanged what I said at the AfD for Rally Squirrel, "Delete as not encyclopedic. The nearest rules are NOT NEWS and NOT TABLOID--the sort of material which is written about because readers find it amusing, the sort of press or broadcast or online material that is best termed "filler". None of this is ever encyclopedic content unless the story becomes a classic, in which case the article, like an article on an internet meme, should be describing the spread of the meme, not the underlying triviality. It's hard to codify this into written rules, so we have to rely upon the judgment of people who know the difference between an encyclopedia and chatter. My wording of it, is the notability has to be about notability for something. This is one of the shortcomings of blind use of the GNG--it should rather be interpreted as the screen for what things that might be notable really are, rather than an overarching rule making any imaginable topic notable." For things that are actually significant, we can make a probable guess that there will be historical interest, and keep them. For things which are actually trivial, there is no way to make a guess, and we should delay coverage. How long? until they begin to be written about in an analytic way in serious works, not just current periodicals. My favorite example is The Great Cat Massacre, which is notable because a major historian used it as the springboard for a general cultural analysis in a famous book. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do we determine "actual significance" or "actual triviality". Your idea is that "we have to rely upon the judgment of people who know the difference between an encyclopedia and chatter", right? The trouble is that what we have here are people who don't know the difference between an internet meme and an exhibit in an art festival; or the difference between the Netherlands and the USA; or the difference between an event and an object. Exactly who gets a !vote in your view? Warden (talk) 10:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying it has to be by the consensus of people here, as there is no other possible standard. I consider publicity stunts and internet memes examples that usually are not, and would take very strong evidence to convince me. Others will use their own judgements. If you think this something important in the world, your values for importance are not the same as mine, but I can't prove mine right. I don't see this as a place for expounding my own philosophy. All I can say is, look into what it is, and see if you really think it's important as either art or perversity, or for sociological or practical significance. DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Wikipedia isn't the place for every internet meme that catches a brief moment of notoriety. Shooterwalker (talk) 06:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and: I'm going to approach this from the articles above that have been referenced that I've had a hand in creating, Keyboard Cat and Crasher Squirrel. Both of these are specifically about a simple idea that became part of the remix culture and went viral as a result of that, thus gaining attention in part for that way. Yes, I know that there were news stories on these pieces that came on slow news days, but that's not the limit of the coverage, because there was more after that fact (eg, the national park taking advantage of the meme to draw interest via Crasher Squirrel). I created/improved those articles after seeing the enduring coverage of those topics.
Now, relating these to this Orville picture, I haven't seen any indication of it being a meme, or even a popular video (in which case we could list it as List of Internet phenomena but the sources don't support that). All I've seen of it is the brief "odd news of the day" segments. (Heck, even KnowYourMeme, a user-contribution-run site, doesn't have a user-made entry for that, and as a contributor there, I would have expected that if this was meme-worthy, it would have easily had one by now.) Maybe it will catch on, but that's directly a CRYSTAL problem, and there's no appropriate redirect target (maybe perhaps to the art exhibit?). --MASEM (t) 15:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well if the creator of Crasher Squirrel is anti-Orville, we're about done here I think. It is true it hasn't taken off as an internet meme.But y'all need to enjoy this.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Just in case my sarcasm detection meter is broken) I'm not trying to speak as the authority on this, only that this is how I would justify the difference between both articles I mention and this one. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree, its a subjective determination always, but your position is fair.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, we seem to have the delusion that the subject is an internet meme. It isn't and never was. It is an artwork which is been created by a professional artist, exhibited by a professional art gallery and entered into a major art fair. The artwork now has a six figure price-tag and has received at least one offer. The subject should therefore not be compared with other internet memes but with other similar notorious artworks such as My Bed, Equivalent VIII or The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living. Warden (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -Scottywong | spout _ 16:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Text Input Device[edit]

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

Broad concept, article has very little actual content and no refs, and at this state is not a useful WP article or even a useful stub. PRODded but was dePRODded by original author; commented-out the "notes to author"-type content but it was reinstated by original author. Original author says "is intended to be a entry/gateway/overview article with many links to existing pages", but in its present outline state it is not an asset to the encyclopedia. PamD 16:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is hard to see how the current WP:OR essay is going to find a worthwhile space in between Human interface device (which already has a neat list of bluelinked HIDs), Pointing device etc etc, and for that matter Keyboard (computing). The reference to "pressing letters into clay" (he means Cuneiform) is distinctly essay-like. We could suggest Fountain pen and its precursors as suitable places to mine for more TID information, but we're already way into WP:NOTESSAY territory here. Quick... fetch me a razor to scrape this parchment clean. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a WP:DICTIONARY. Msnicki (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Article has been improved to better show notability/coverage. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel M. Ziff[edit]

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

This person in not notable according to WP:GNG. Nothing's on the article makes him notable.Even though his father is a notable, but the notability is not inherited.Thus, This article should be deleted, lacking notability. Max Viwe | Viwe The Max 15:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge to father/family. No indication of notability per WP:GNG or otherwise. If he's done anything noteworthy/unusual himself, then he may merit an article, but there's not evidence of that. The included references don't offer sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:GNG - being mentioned solely in the context of his father doesn't count. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The man inherits 1/3rd of $1.4B in 1994 and turns it into $4.2B in 2012 through his own investment decisions. How is that not notable? Why then do we have wikipages for Walton family members like James Carr Walton who dot even make their own investment decisons. Also, why the big rush to delete a page that has just been created?Patapsco913 (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of Hedge Fund, Private Equity Titans - http://www.finalternatives.com/node/7219 - none of these guys are passive investors. The fact that they inherited their money or not is irrelevant.Patapsco913 (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF Max Viwe | Viwe The Max 18:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable individual. As #97 on the Forbes 400 richest Americans, I believe there would be plenty more to write about him. I can think of investment philosophy, philanthropy and family as starters. Clearly notable. Vertium (talk) 17:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Searching for "Daniel Ziff" (without the middle initial) yields verifiable reliable sources regarding notability. --William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 19:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An individual worth $4.2B is apt to be in the public eye. Listings on the Forbes lists pretty much gets this subject over the notability bar for me. Far-reaching import as the heir to the Ziff-Davis Publishing empire again goes to notability. Carrite (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Forbes article only talks about the Ziff brothers in general. To meet WP:GNG he needs substantial coverage in reliable sources, and nobody's presented any. As to why there are articles on Walton heirs, some of them have done notable things, others haven't and might be deleted/merged. This article could be merged to William Bernard Ziff, Jr. (his father) --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. Still think should be 'KEEP'. While notability is not inheritable, wealth is and when it's inherited, the recipient (especially when worth $4b) is usually notable if he's spending any of his money. He has been written about in reliable sources since at least 2006 as a young billionaire (see http://on.msnbc.com/NlA0dM), he is noted as a comparison for young billionaires on Kenneth C. Griffin, and has created (since 2000) a charitable foundation in his own right.(see http://www.melissadata.com/lookups/np.asp?zip=134083253. To my thinking, this is a KEEP though the article needs to be expanded. Vertium (talk) 03:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Carrite, and there's also additional coverage about this particular Ziff because of his youth and other activities. I can't see any good reason to create a gap here in our generally comprehensive coverage of billionaires. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge all to B-Boy Bouillabaisse. -Scottywong | prattle _ 16:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

59 Chrystie Street[edit]

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

Individual sections of a song that does not on its own rise to notability for independent articles for each section. I am also nominating the following related pages:

-- KTC (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Paul's Boutique is a very important and influential hip-hop record, heavily discussed, and there actually are sources for at least some of the content in these subarticles. While I'm sympathetic to the notion that we don't need a separate article for each section of a track, rather than deletion perhaps it would be better to merge all of these back into the article for B-Boy Bouillabaisse, which could collect the significant and sourced material into one article? --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE So-called "importance" of a hip-hop (or any other) song is not sufficient for keeping it as a separate article. I would suggest merging the appropriate content into the main B-Boy Bouillabaisse article for the record. Vertium (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all of the articles listed in this AfD to B-Boy Bouillabaisse as suggested. The song is notable but that song's article is the obvious and convenient place to discuss each section. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to B-Boy Bouillabaisse. Whether or not the individual components are notable enough to support independent entries, it's more convenient for the reader to have them in a single article. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:06, 9 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 seems to be there is not yet any evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mailboxing iOS game[edit]

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

No indication that this game meets the general notability guideline. I found a few user-submitted reviews and copies of a news release by the game's creator but there seems to be very little in-depth coverage by third-party reliable sources. Pichpich (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The game is still a new game and it hasn't received as much attention as "Angry Birds" however each day the number of media and other source of coverage is growing. So this is article will still grow to become richer with references. 5:12, 4 June (GMT +2) Austris
But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore only contains articles about topics that have received coverage sufficient to build a well sourced article. If this game receives the kind of attention you're hoping for, this article can be recreated down the road. Pichpich (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just added big reliable source as it was the first game to enter the iOS market from Latvia and was featured in Latvian biggest Business web media sites, it delivers more value to it's origin story. Just to get things clear, then I would like to know how manny sources I have to submit in the article so it wouldn't be considered as an article for deletion. And how reliable the source have to be, like the Db.lv is a site with at least 250k daily visitors. 5:29, 4 June (GMT +2) Austris

Delete. Being the "first iOS game from Latvia" has no bearing on notability. Basically just a long advertisement; article is sailing perilously close to the G11 wind as it is. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that this G11 also says: ". Note: An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion." This article is not promotional, the material is written in natural 3d person view and delivers normal natural feedback about the "Game" as the wikipedia it self suggests, it delivers articles about games, movies e.c this is behind these categories and mustn't be confused or abused about promotional materials. 5:29, 4 June (GMT +2) Austris

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON if ever. Wikipedia is not for things that will one day be notable but things that have been notable. Dismas|^(talk) 22:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been updated with reliable source, as the Wikipedia rule book says: "require that the topic being considered be itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources." Therefor it mustn't not be subjected to the form as TOOSOON article. From Latvian point of view this is a big achievement and notable article, because the game has been up in the top of Latvian App store, had a lot of media coverage e.c. To question the reliability to this article is to insult the status of Latvian achievements and it's considerable nationality suppression. 10.45 Am, 5 June 2012 (GMT +2) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Austrisu (talk • contribs) 07:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Going through the revisions, there were links in the eternal link sections to reviews in Latvian and Polish, but both of these amounted to here's a new app and do not serve to give this particular app notability nor do they seem to support the claim that it's the first iOS game from Latvia. Eastshire (talk) 13:22, 5 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avalon (2014 film)[edit]

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

Contested prod (tag removed without any explanation). The article is premature. Per WP:NFF, films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles. Pichpich (talk) 13:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability; clearly Too Soon. JoelWhy? talk 17:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is coming out in 2 years from now, but there is not enough coverage to suggest this film is notable-in-advance. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Fails WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL for now--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 19:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NFF is quite clear; this can easily be recreated if and when the film meets that guideline. Ubelowme (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. While it could merit an article in the futire, at this time this one is waaaaaaay WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no official date planned nor there has been much info made public. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. →TSU ^tp* 09:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Copyvio, advert, non-notable organistaion, etc. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congresbury SkatePark[edit]

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

Unreferenced opinion piece, WP:SOAP. WWGB (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Violet Ferguson-Louw[edit]

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

No indication of notability and no references. JoelWhy? talk 12:48, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 19:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage whatsoever in reliable sources, and this does appear to qualify for a speedy. -- Whpq (talk) 17:27, 6 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. Given the minor improvements in the article and the exposure in some more publications since the last AFD, there now exists sufficient basis to retain this article. However, some further improvements and citation of printed publications would be beneficial. AGK [•] 11:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yaki Kadafi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was listed once before with a delete result, but I have no way of telling if this qualifies as a speedy as db-repost. Google News yields 0 results, and all others websites are either mirrors of this Wikipedia page or fall into the bucket of highly UNreliable sources. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I expected to suggest a redirect to Muammar until I read it; I've never heard of anyone else with this name before. It's definitely not a repost; maybe it would have qualified for G4 when it was originally created, but G4 is only for "a sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" of a deleted article, and this has been extensively modified since April of last year. Nyttend (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP This artist has been credited as a writer on works that reached #1 on the Top 200 Billboard Charts! He has been credited for co-writing multiple hits of the late 2Pac Shakur! Considering the success this artist had with 2Pac Shakur and the Outlawz as well as the connection implied, that he is the only witness to the unsolved murder of 2Pac Shakur. The significance and notability may also be considered through mentioning in several Print Publications.--Regeek (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please view links to reliable, independent source here:

ASCAP Record (credited as writer of #1 Billboard charting works)
Billboard charting record
Washington Times List of notable Rappers gunned down--Regeek (talk) 08:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I can not possibly bring myself to understand why anyone would want to delete this entry! I for one understand if someone is not well versed in the Categories: Hip Hop, Rap etc. but to nominate this page for deletion shocks me. Perhaps this is something to tell the millions of fans of 2Pac Shakur and his music, including this member Yaki Kadafi that this late rapper is not worthy of an article! Please consider the notability of this late rapper and the legacy he and 2Pac Shakur have left behind.--Regeek (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article needs some copy-editing but there appears to be a strong case to be made for good sourcing having been provided. Stormbay (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I have provided adequate citations to reliable sources independent of the subject, which meet the WP:Notability WP:guidelines. As mentioned before these additional sources credit the subject as a writer for musical works that not only reached the billboard charts, but also went Platinum multiple times.

- ASCAP Record (credited as writer of #1 Billboard charting works)
Billboard charting record

The subject meets nearly ALL WP:Music guidelines and in my opinion represents a very strong ~~KEEP~~--Regeek (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: you may add comments but should only !vote "keep" once. JohnCD (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, User:Regeek has made some good arguments why this article should be kept, but I would like to see someone else chime in with an opinion before definitively closing this one way or the other. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. The sources being cited seem to refer to the artist Tupac/2Pac and not this subject. I cannot find non-trivial coverage of Yaki Kadafi in reliable sources. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sources cited refer to Yaki Kadafi and are without a doubt reliable sources. Please revisit them as you obviously did not view them correctly!--Regeek (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep He meets WP:MUSIC guidelines through his songwriting, and possibly for his appearances on hit records, but so far there's very little press coverage apart from references to his role in Tupac's death. On the other hand, he's dead, so WP:BLP doesn't apply. And there are a lot of books about Tupac, so he must get a mention in some of them. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He is mentioned in ALL of the printed publications! And without doubt has earned his place within Wikipedia, considering, that WP is not a platform to advertise or give room for articles on insignificant subjects and events! Again, I must stress the following!

The Washington Times named him in their "List of Rappers gunned down", which looks at 20 notable Rappers gunned down.^[1] His death has been written about in numerous printed publications including the book by Cathy Scott^[2] and several others^[3]--Regeek (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous Print Publications! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Regeek (talk • contribs) 20:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge usable content with Outlawz and Tupac Shakur. Subject here has some notoriety but doesn't merit a separate article because he isn't notable in his own right, only as a member of the Outlawz group and for his close association with Tupac Shakur. DocTree (talk) 03:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Friday: Martha's Madness[edit]

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

No references are available, almost appears to be a hoax, as no reliable sources confirm that this is Minaj's next album. GouramiWatcher ^(Gulp) 12:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Roman Reloaded was released only two months ago, and since Nicki is on tour promoting it, this "Martha's Madness" is definitely a fake. It needs to be deleted ASAP, and all references to it on related articles have already been removed. 75.130.224.43 (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to either be a fake future album or merely WP:CRYSTALBALL; whichever the case (most likely the former), no coverage appears to exist (significant or otherwise), thereby failing WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Gongshow ^Talk 08:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Maybe before you delete it, you should ask whoever made it to tell us where he got it. It might be real, but it looks really fake. Bluedog311 (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete (non-admin technical closure)--Ymblanter (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cigarettes in cinema[edit]

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

Non-notable band per WP:GNG. The article says that they "have many covers on Youtube of their own covers of the song" , but I have only found two YouTube videos: [8] and [9], and there is no reliable source which can confirm this. (YouTube cannot be cited directly as it is generally not considered reliable) jfd34 (talk) 12:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as non-notable band.TheLongTone (talk) 12:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Product placement#Tobacco. As a second choice, delete because I don't even know what it means when the article says that the band has "many covers on Youtube of their own covers of the song." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:18, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete COI from author and no notability outside their own Youtube clips. Lugnuts (talk) 07:57, 5 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 speedily deleted per G7 by Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Auro University[edit]

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

Advertisement, violating WP:NOTADVERTISING, and all material of the article appears to be based on the university's official website, not on any reliable source. Created by an editor who has a possible conflict of interest with the subject. jfd34 (talk) 11:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 4. Snotbot t • c » 11:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thinning the Herd[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. Speedy was declined with an assertion that it has some coverage in an magazine. But I'm not fully convinced that it follows our notability guidelines. — Bill william compton^Talk 10:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found this source through Google News, but I can't find any others. If anyone is able to track down the source mentioned in the article, it might be useful, but it sounds like the kind of column that gives a few sentences each about many up-and-coming bands, so I don't think we should automatically assume it counts towards notability. I can't see any other reason why they might pass WP:BAND. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on the references on the page, not enough to indicate notability. If anyone wants to search for some more/better references, I'll keep an eye on this page and am open to changing my vote. JoelWhy? talk 18:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pierce Mattie Public Relations[edit]

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

Advert for company. Lacks significant independent coverage of Pierce Mattie Public Relations. Falls short of the Depth of coverage needed and sources fall short of the Audience part of WP:ORG's Primary criteria. Notability is not inherited from it's clients. Below is a look at current sourcing.

1 listing

2 by them

3 dead link

4 claim is not in source, currently just a listing for companies that are in the source.

5 not about Pierce Mattie

6 by them

7 listing only

8 linkedin

9 blog where they talk about themselves that lacks independent coverage

10 press release

11 listing

12 not about Pierce Mattie

13 not a reliable source

14 pr blog

15 not a reliable source where they talk about themselves that lacks independent coverage

16 claim is not in source. no coverage about Pierce Mattie

17 press release

18 press release

19 press release

20 short routine announcement

21 press release

I found nothing better. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I went through all of the sources in the article, and I agree with Duffbeerforme's interpretations of them - none of them pass our guidelines on identifying reliable sources. I couldn't find any reliable sources online either, so I can only conclude that this company fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom and Mr. Stradivarius -- Dewritech (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost a G11 speedy--a long list of non-notable clients is not material for an encyclopedia. As for notability, it's time we started considering claims like "One of the Fastest Growing Companies in America" to be an indication of NOTYETNOTABLE. We regard such "awards" as probable evidence of non-notability for people, and it would be appropriate for companies also. In theory, notability and promotionalism are separate factors, but the coincidence of borderline notability and borderline spam should mean delete--they so often go together. I'm willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to a well written article with borderline notability , and I'm certainly prepared to rewrite if necessary to get a proper article for something clearly notable, but if both are dubious, it simply isn't worth the effort of an attempted rescue. There are too many actually important subjects where we need articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 11 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 Nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 03:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Obscenity[edit]

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

clearly fails WP:MUSIC. no indepth coverage, needs wider coverage than metal music news. [10]. LibStar (talk) 08:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:MUSIC with Century Media releases. I've added the AMG profile to the article. Chubbles (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:MUSIC, with multiple releases on the notable Head Not Found and Century Media Records labels. There's significant coverage from Joel McIver here, a MusicMight biog here and an Allmusic one here. Allmusic notes that have carried out international tours in Europe and the USA (another criterion for WP:MUSIC. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:07, 5 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. AGK [•] 11:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talent Development High School[edit]

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

Delete. Noon-notable performing arts school that is a branch of a commercial organisation. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Restore or recreate Brent Street Studios and merge this article to it. This "school" appears to be the entity that supplies academic credentials to full-time performing arts students at Brent Street Studios; as such, the "school" is not notable. It should be merged to Brent Street Studios, except for the detail that the Brent Street article was deleted. Based on ghits like [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], and [16], I contend that Brent Street Studios is notable as a center for performing arts training, so its article should be recreated or restored. --Orlady (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not being familiar with Australian lingo, does the term "high school" mean the same thing there as it does in the United States? If so, would this school qualify for automatic notability? OSborn ^arf_contribs. 01:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "High School does normally mean the same in Australia as in the US. This does not appear to be a high school in the normal sense with actual students physically attending a real school.--Grahame (talk) 02:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a real high school as it usually means. Bearian (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Hue Sat Lum 00:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Colegio La Fe[edit]

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

Article without sources to prove notability Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see from the deletion sorting crew that this is a Venezuela school. Is there a reason here for deletion? Unscintillating (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, being unsourced is a reason for deletion... p b p 04:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being unsourced is a reason for improvement. I see that you're still getting AFD confused with CLEANUP. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The tags asking for inprovement and sources are there for the last half year. So I considered that nobody is going to improve the article. And when nobody cares, it can be deleted because is lacks the notability to attract any cooperation... Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:28, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't start this AfD, so your beef is with Night. But being unsourced is a reason for deletion, too. I don't believe that all articles can be sourced their way out of deletion, nor do I believe it would be worth our time to do so with all the articles that possibly could p b p 13:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I worry that there might be room for consideration of WP:BIAS here. I would prefer seeing some input from local wikipedians before deleting. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom p b p 13:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Consensus is that we keep verified secondary schools. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently a verified secondary school. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 01:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the claim in the nomination that the page lacks sources is not a reason for deletion; it's a reason for improvement. No evidence of a search for sources in Spanish nor that a local search has been carried out. We delete when a subject is inherently non-notable or when the necessary sources have been shown not to exist. Neither applies here; no reason to assume that WP:ORG cannot be met. The way we build Wikipedia is by extending content not by lazy deletions. TerriersFan (talk) 23:53, 10 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 Heartsdales. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Radioactive (Heartsdales album)[edit]

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

The album fails WP:NALBUMS and lack of sources to establish notability (contested PROD) ÐℬigXЯaɣ 17:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to artist per standard procedure. There's nothing worth saving here. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. No reason to leave a redirect either. --DAJF (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 00:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:NALBUMS, there's no reason this album is noteworthy on its own--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 06:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the artist, per Sven Manguard. Rlendog (talk) 15:49, 11 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 Heartsdales. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Super Star (Heartsdales album)[edit]

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

The album fails WP:NALBUMS and lack of sources to establish notability (contested PROD) ÐℬigXЯaɣ 17:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to artist per standard procedure. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. No reason to leave a redirect either. --DAJF (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 00:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:NALBUMS, there's no reason this album is noteworthy on its own--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 06:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the artist, per Sven Manguard. Rlendog (talk) 15:49, 11 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 Heartsdales. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

THE LEGEND (Heartsdales album)[edit]

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

The album fails WP:NALBUMS and lack of sources to establish notability (contested PROD) ÐℬigXЯaɣ 17:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to artist per standard procedure. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Can you please give me a link where this procedure was standardised ? I find no reason why a redirect with this non notable album should even exist.--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 08:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability. No reason to leave a redirect either. --DAJF (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 00:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:NALBUMS, there's no reason this album is noteworthy on its own--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 06:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the artist, per Sven Manguard. Rlendog (talk) 15:48, 11 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 Heartsdales. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra Foxy (Heartsdales album)[edit]

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

The album fails WP:NALBUMS and lack of sources to establish notability (contested PROD) ÐℬigXЯaɣ 17:22, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to artist per standard procedure. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. No reason to leave a redirect either. --DAJF (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 00:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:NALBUMS, there's no reason this album is noteworthy on its own--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 06:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the artist, per Sven Manguard. Rlendog (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gizmag[edit]

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

Non-notable blog/magazine. Claims to be a top 100 blog on Technorati, which is a really low stat, but the references for that just leads to some unimpressive looking tracking number from Technorati. Tries to back up it's claim of 2.5 million visitors by linking to their Google advertising account. Can not find any coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, for example the SAY Media citation sounds impressive until you realize say media is a publisher and advertiser. Ridernyc (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided independent third-party sources that prove (not claim) Gizmag is a notable site. Quantcast and Technorati are both notable enough to have Wikipedia pages. --Skagnet (talk) 06:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There needs to be significant coverage about Gizmag. I didn't find any but if some are brought forth, I'll evaluate them. -- Whpq (talk) 15:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 00:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From Wikipedia:Notability (web): "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance..." and ""Notable" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance,"". There are no sources saying this website has any notable "achievements, impact or historical significance". The claim "we have a lot of visitors", even if substantiated, isn't enough to make it notable.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 06:47, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tongbram[edit]

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

I found no coverage in either reliable or unreliable sources for this surname. SL93 (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—While it certainly exists, I'm not finding any coverage to indicate its notability. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 00:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's nothing about this particular name that makes it more noteworthy than any other name--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 06:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christian A. Larsen[edit]

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

This article fails WP:Notability, specifically no significant coverage by reliable source. Two working links exist, both to artist collectives/zines which include said artist as a contributor. Two other dead links exist, both to local radio stations. I Googled the radio stations and could not find reference to him. I also looked for other notable sources and could not locate any Dkriegls (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has managed to make a living as a writer, but I don't see the coverage needed to establish notability. [17] is substantial coverage in a local publication. -- Whpq (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 00:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per WP:ENT (non-admin closure) —Hue Sat Lum 00:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas James Longley[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Ridernyc (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Has WP:BEFORE been followed? What did the nominator find? Carrite (talk) 00:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before was followed. I have actually been checking all these articles today and suspect major conflict of interest and puppetry going with these pages. The movie and none of the actors in them appear to pass notability and many of the articles seem to be created by users with similar editing styles and patterns, some of whom have been blocked from editing. If have a real reason why the article should be kept you are welcome to comment. Ridernyc (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Many references, although most are either trivial or of uncertain reliability. I'm assuming that the 2004 Times article is more substantial and direct, as it is cited as directly praising the subject. If this is the case, this probably is enough to constitute notability alongside the other sources. JulesH (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The BBC ref and the Times article seem to satisfy WP:ENT--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 06:33, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the subject of the article is not yet famous, that's not the only criteria for notability. His roles in his (somewhat) limited repertoire have been sufficient to be noted in press articles in Sneak Peek, The Movie Pool, Horror Asylum amongst others. One article, noting his dropping OUT of a film produced a news article, so I don't think notability can really be the argument for deletion. He clearly passes WP:BASIC and given the coverage in reliable sources, seems to pass WP:N as well. Vertium (talk) 02:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that the subject is not notable enough for a stand-alone article, and that it should be merged to a more appropriate parent page. However, no such parent page exists in any form, and the suggested targets for the merger are articles that have not yet been created. In order to implement the consensus that the subject does not warrant stand-alone inclusion, the result is therefore to delete the page. However, this decision is without prejudice to userfying the content for inclusion in the future development of an appropriate parent page, nor to restoring the page in future in order for a merger to take place. AGK [•] 11:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invicta FC 1: Coenen vs. Ruyssen[edit]

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

Contested PROD : This sports event fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy along with WP:EVENT and WP:SPORTSEVENT , there is no attempt in the actual article to demonstrate any lasting significance. Covered by routine Primary News sources only. Mt king ^(edits) 00:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is absolutely an event with lasting significance, and the ESPN.com source explains its notability and is not routine coverage. This is by far the most organized attempt at an all-female card in the history of WMMA, utilizing a strategic partnership with Strikeforce and putting a number of highly ranked female fighters throughout the card. I do agree the article could use expanding to reflect this. I don't think it's reason enough to delete it, particularly with the MMA:NOT debate still up in the air. Beansy (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An event that happened a month ago has not had time to show "lasting significance" and the ESPN source is more about the organization than the first event. Papaursa (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Invicta Fighting Championships This article consists primarily of routine sports reporting--including the fight card for the second Invicta event. The only non-routine source appears to be the espn.com article and that deals more with the concept of all female MMA than this individual event. It may be a little early to claim Invicta FC is a notable promotion, but the organization seems to have a better claim to notability than any one of its events. Jakejr (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into organizational article I agree with Jakejr's comment. I think even claiming the organization is notable runs afoul of WP:CRYSTALBALL, but I'd be willing to give an article on the organization a chance. The coverage on this specific event is pretty much routine sports coverage (except for the ESPN article--which would make a good start for an article on the organization). Papaursa (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to 'List of Invicta FC events', then Keep Whilst I do disagree with the concept, Invicta's first event is notable, and with the clear sign of them putting on regular shows I do not see why this information should be deleted, so if by doing the same thing as the UFC events will save it, then I'm up for it. The 2012 in UFC Events page somehow passes for notability despite the messy page and the exact same sources for the omnibus page as to the individual pages, and I believe this concept would work for Invicta. I also think that creating a page for Invicta Fighting Championships is also needed very soon for any future of this system, for without it the possibility of being nominated for deleted can still happen. Pound4Pound (talk) 08:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth pointing out as well that the Invicta FC 2 event has been added to the page already, so the change of name should happen, then we can discuss with the page creator about assisting with creating a much-needed Invicta Fighting Championships page. Pound4Pound (talk) 08:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Life Within A Day[edit]

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

Album to be released on 28 May 2012. No coverage from reliable sources, only the trackslisting. Also, the main performer (Squackett) doesn't have a WP page (seems like its members do but none of their pages have anything written about the album). It fails the music notability guideline as well as falling into Too Soon. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 01:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BEFORE: Coverage in Guitar World[18], Prog Magazine (cover story of May 23 issue)[19], Vintagerock.com[20], Rolling Stone[21], etc.[22] --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arxiloxos; there appears to be sufficient coverage in the above links to warrant an article (meeting WP:GNG). Gongshow ^Talk 06:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Woods (meteorologist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted in 2010, re-created in January 2012. Only minor notability asserted, no sources found. Regional Emmys are not the same as Emmy Emmys. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous AfD close. Subject has not become more notable in the interim. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My delete is more from the aspect of copy pasted text from a non free source than notability but this article has somehow slipped by 2 previuos delete votes so IMO we would be justified in just killing it now rather speedily since this would be the third time this article got the delete verdict. Kumioko (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Weiss[edit]

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

An unsigned singer-songwriter. Hasn't released an album or song via any label. She self-publishes her music. Her claim to fame is raising money via Kickstarter for her first album. Article has one reference to a three paragraph article in the New York Times. I can't find the alleged Wired article anywhere. Only other reliable ref I've found is a Curve Magazine article. Ref was on-line only and not in the magazine. I think the first sentence from the on-line article says it best, "Unless you are a fan of Tumblr and are a lesbian living in New York, then chances are you haven’t heard of Allison Weiss." Only other refs I can find are blogs. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and not enough reliable, independent sources to pass GNG. Prod was contested on unknown grounds. Bgwhite (talk) 23:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now passes WP:MUSICBIO on the grounds that the article: "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" Keep, for this reason. Although the New York Times piece is short it is there, and credible. The full length article with a video interview by Billboard.com is certainly noteworthy, and the selection as a panelist at SXSW is certainly non-trivial. Additionally recommending the removal of stub-status at this point. Cameronhurd (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SOURCES on what is and isn't a reliable source. The interviews, blogs, bandcamp, and tour postings are not reliable. Bgwhite (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's enough independent and reliable coverage to compile a decent article about this singer/songwriter [23], [24], [25], [26], [27] etc. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the refs found by Vejvančický. Now certainly sufficient RS especially BBC and Jewish Exponent to form an article on a singer. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on WP:COMPOSER. I can't find any references to a songwriting credit of a notbale song. Roodog2k (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why WP:COMPOSER as criteria? The proposed notability is that of a musician (i.e. WP:MUSICBIO) and not a "composer or lyricist". Cameronhurd (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She's identified as a singer/SONGWRITER. Someone else covered the non-notability of the singer part. Roodog2k (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She only has to pass one of these, and we now have enough reliable sources for a singer. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The UGA article is pretty much out, per WP:MUSICBIO. The BBC article is not about her, and is only a trivial mention. This leaves us with really two references.Roodog2k (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the sources identified by Vejvančický are substantial, notably the Billboard feature as well as the BBC and Jewish Exponent articles. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:57, 5 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.