Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday June 8 (Sat) June 7 (Fri) June 6 (Thu) More...

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 20 March	22 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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 a7, webcontent with no indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:21, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nacho birthday[edit]

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

Not a notable thing. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 23:58, 21 March 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 result was keep. The nominator's rationale seems to focus mostly on whether or not atheism is a religion. As many !voters point out, this problem can be easily resolved by renaming the article (but since there is no consensus on what to rename it to, that discussion should happen on the article's talk page). There is consensus that the article needs to be cleaned up, and that the inclusion criteria need to be clarified, but I'm not seeing consensus that this article shouldn't exist at all. No one has provided an adequate rationale demonstrating that this list of people is not notable while other lists of religious converts are notable. —SW— ^confess 18:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of converts to Atheism[edit]

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

Atheism is not a religion in the sense that Christianity or Islam are. There is no formal means for "converting" to atheism, and it has no prescribed set of beliefs and practice. It is inappropriate to describe people who have ceased believing in a deity as "converts"; which falsely implies that atheism is itself a religion. RolandR (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've no opinion, for the moment, on whether this article should be deleted or not, but I think some of the problems the nominator mentions above could probably be solved simply by renaming it. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: Nominator took the liberty of nominating after I removed the PROD, and explained to him (or her) that the list /is/ notable and he's fighting this over semantics. Agreed, atheism isn't a religion but it's just as notable as converts to christianity. I would really appreciate it if just once someone actually brought an issue to me, rather than PRODing everything. The point is, the article does belong on Wikipedia, maybe with a different name but the nominator is trying to get it deleted over naming conventions. That's not how wikipedia should work. Ncboy2010 (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We already have Lists of atheists listing seven list of atheist whatevers articles, a list of more lists of atheist somethings, eight lists of atheists by surnames, a List of fictional atheists and agnostics, and Category:Atheists with 75 dependent more specific atheist categories. The problem with the List of converts to Atheism is that the large majority of people now professing to be atheists were raised as having a religious affiliation and at some time identified with it before becoming an apostate. For example, Richard Dawkins was raised an Anglican and has stated that he embraced Christianity until his mid-teens. So using the inclusion criterion given, he should be on this list of "converts", and in fact the large majority of people identified as atheists should be included, making this completely unmanageable. --Lambiam 08:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. --Lambiam 08:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of the larger effort to list all notable converts to/from major world religions. Yes, atheism is not a religion, but it is analogous to one, and many other articles that form part of this effort (List of converts to Islam from Atheism, for example) treat it as such. Angrysockhop ^{(talk to me)} 09:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:LC items 2, 4, 7, 10, and 11. Stifle (talk) 12:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wouldn't be averse to merging it into the lists of atheists as a subsection, perhaps "by former religion" Ncboy2010 (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: If it is just renamed, how about "List of formerly religious atheists"? No opinion yet on keep/delete/merge. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But are these people really "formerly religious", rather than just nominally, or by birth, linked too a religious community? What evidence is there that Philip Adams, or As'ad Abu Khalil, or Maryam Namazie, to take just three of the people on this list, ever was religious? This objection applies to Ncboy's suggestion above of listing people by "former religion" too. RolandR (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then they shouldn't be on this list. There's a List of atheists, and then there's a list of people who have become atheists but were once not atheists. Notable people only, of course, on both lists. Two related, but not identical lists, similar to List of countries by population and List of countries by population density. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not following the logic of "Then they shouldn't be on this list".

You subscribe to whatever your parents subscribe to until you are old enough to form your own opinion.

When I "converted" to atheism, I thought I was the only one in the world; I didn't know there was a word. I had a crisis of conscience every time we had a questionnaire at school that required us to have a religion, and so I would have to lie to avoid persecution.

That's how it was in the 1960s.

I have since "converted" to agnosticism and as an agnostic, I resent being grouped with atheists, since the atheists are a bunch of doctrinaire assholes, as bad as any other group of religious fundamentalist kooks.

Varlaam (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your considered opinion of my philosophical outlook. Has it occurred to you that what is true for you may not be true for others, and that the fact that you subscribed to your parents religious beliefs offers no evidence that others subscribed to their own parents' beliefs? The Wikipedia guideline is clear and simple: we may not state that a person holds, or held, a religious view, in the absence of a reliable source stating that they (not their parents, grandparents, or neighbour's spaniel) did so. RolandR (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just as relevant as any other list of people who have done XYZ. Even if atheism is not a religion per se, it just as informative to know who changed from atheism to relgion XYZ as it is to know the converse, who changed from religion XYZ to no religion. Iglooflame (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't agree with the nom's reasoning, but I don't find enough notability in this rather arbitrary list. I'm mostly objecting to the list proliferation... when there's no clear notability established outside of that (a lot of OR/synth). Shadowjams (talk) 06:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment,I think in which religion an atheist is raised can be covered in List of atheists article and every atheist's biography, converts to atheism does not make sense!If you are keen to quantify converts, you can create a relevant subcategory or in List of atheists article,you can have two sections-‘raised atheist’ and ‘converts’, Thank you.Skashifakram (talk) 03:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not surprisingly, even Delete voters do not agree with the nominator's rationale. Conversion to a belief, or to 'believe in one less god than everyone else', is a valid criteria. I assert that the article will be good enough in its inevitably incomplete form. Anarchangel (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clean up as some sources such as [1] do not make a claim more substantive than "leaving (a religion)" which is not equivalent to "atheism." Labelling a person as "atheist" should require (for living people) strong sourcing directly for the label, as it is IMO a "contentious claim." Blank unless and until such sourcing is uniformly established for those listed per WP:BLP instead of simple deletion - allowing the poor sourcing to be remedied. Oh -- and "prior religion(s)" also require strong specific sourcing for each person. Collect (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monstrosity (song)[edit]

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

Unsourced speculation about a possible song that may be released, delete per wp:CRYSTAL Yoenit (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would say that this is closely resemble the case of The 10 Pounds Hammer, except it is NOT the album, but the song in it. The forum speculation (as I use the Google Check) is not consider a source, though. --G(x) (talk) 03:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A maybe song from a maybe album with no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't believe I'm reading an article that says "it was maybe recorded last year for an album that will maybe be released next year". Non-notable crystal-ballery at its finest. Tarc (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Wings (comic)[edit]

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

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

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

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

No independent sources to establish notability. Kelly ^hi! 23:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A7, no assertation of notability as a webcomic, also suspecting COI given that the article creator's name is similar to one of the writers'. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it need to have a notabilty as a webcomic to be on Wikipedia? The comic is published in over a dozen magazines in seven languages around the world and sold thousands of books. The website has thousands of daily visitors. Where do you draw the line for "notability"? I am one of the authors of the comic, but I fail to see the COI. IMO the article is quite objective.--Stefthechef (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources. I could find nothing verifying that the webcomic is published in magazines. Searching "Chicken Wings" + "Webcomic" found only blog posts, forums and Wikipedia mirrors. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, firstly, if you search for "webcomic" you won't find the magazines, and secondly, the comic strips are in the printed versions only, not on their websites, of course. Except Trade A Plane, who keeps an archive of the recent strips on their site (http://www.trade-a-plane.com/cartoons/chickenwings). I can scan some pages and upload them somehwere, but a) I don't know where I would have to upload them to and b) I'll have to do that tomorrow, because I'll go to bed now.--Stefthechef (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't count. That's primary sources. You need a secondary source — i.e., someone who does not publish the strip but has written about it in a magazine, newspaper, etc. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. I believe I've heard of this webcomic, so it's not like it's a complete unknown, but the clincher here is that it just doesn't have enough reliable sources to show that it's notable. There's one on the article, but I've found that you generally need about 2-3 to show that there's been a lot of coverage. I found a few mention in some blogs and small magazines, but I don't really see where they'd pass as reliable sources and in the end that's what really is needed to show notability and to back up the claims of the strip being published in different languages and magazines. I know that being reprinted can help pass WP:WEB, but we need wider proof of this other than via primary sources. I'm also not sure that being reprinted via small magazines and websites is what they mean by being reprinted. I have no problem with this being userfied until more reliable sources can be found.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This comic is one of the most famous published on aviation magazines worldwide: I already added some references of publications, will add more if i find. --CeruttiPaolo (talk) 11:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why is this even being considered ?! Seriously, Wikipedia guys, there actually are some useless articles which are not marked for deletion, also Wiki should be used for gaining and sharing knowledge, not deleting it.--JeanCaffou (talk) 12:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any valid reason to delete it? I don't think so.--Fede0411 (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC) — Fede0411 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Would this count as 'independent sources to establish notability? http://www.alabamaaviator.com/news.asp?record_no=22887 and http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=1303281451001 The EAA page specifically says 'Chicken Wings' is published in "various publications, including EAA's Sport Aviation magazine" Professional Helicopter Pilots Association: http://www.phpa.org/chickenwings/ Published books available for sale on Aircraft Spruce: http://www.aircraftspruce.com/menus/ps/gifts_comics.html and also as an app in the iTunes store. Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Chicken-Wings-First-Michael-Strasser/dp/0741427184 Bradc314 (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC) — Bradc314 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are kind of on the fence, but FOR GOD'S SAKE YOU CAN'T USE A FORUM POST. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We’re not that big among “normal” Comics and Webcomics and we’re certainly not Dilbert or Garfield. But in our niche (comics about aviation) we’re number one. I’m not saying we’re famous, but I dare say we’re “notable”.

I don’t understand why the very publications that publish our works are not proof of our proliferation. We’re a gimmick for their readers. Do you expect third-party newspapers and magazines to write lauding articles about features in competing magazines?

Also, why is the fact that a source is secondary so important? Say I write a commentary, article or op-ed that gets published in the Washington Post. According to your definition, that is not a trustworthy source about my writing. If a local newspaper editor writes about my piece that he read, it is a secondary source and therefore more trustworthy and should be quoted as a source instead?

And why is a link relevant for a source to be accurate? Is everything that you can't find in a quick Google search invalid as a source? How about other printed publications? They are used frequently as a reference in Wikipedia, and if you want to verify or falsify that reference, you will have to pick up a physical copy and check. Same here, I challenge you to falsify any information that I provide by actually picking up an issue of Trade-A-Plane or Sport Aviation Magazine (or whatever) and looking at it. You can also contact their editors. Here is a list of magazines that you could use to check:

Sport Aviation Magazine (US): http://www.eaa.org/sportaviationmag/ This one gets mailed to all 160.000+ EAA members

Trade A Plane (US): http://www.trade-a-plane.com Circulation: Over 120.000 copies in over 100 countries

Atlantic Flyer(US): http://aflyer.com/ (couldn’t find media data)

Fliegermagazin (Germany): http://www.fliegermagazin.de Circulation: 31.720

Aeromarkt (Germany): http://www.aeromarkt.net Circulation: ca. 30.000

Roger (Germany): http://www.rogermagazin.de Circulation: 3.000

Pilot Magazine (UK): http://www.pilotweb.aero Circulation: ca. 15.000

JP4 (Italy): http://www.ediservice.it/riviste/index.php?rivista=3 (couldn’t find media data)

Volez! (France): http://www.volez.com/page-1-le_magazine.html (couldn’t find media data)

Cockpit (Switzerland): http://cockpit.aero/ Circulation: ca. 5.000

Siivet (Finland): http://www.apali.fi/siivet/ (couldn’t find media data)

Flynytt (Norway): http://www.flynytt.no/ Circulation: 6.800

There are many more features, some irregular and obscure, some so small not worth mentioning, like local newsletters. Here’s just an incomplete list of bigger magazines that featured our strips in the past and have either ceased publication or discontinued cooperation:

Rotorblatt (Germany) http://www.rotorblatt.de

America’s Flyways (US, ceased publication)

Pilot Shop News (US, ceased publication)

Avion (US)

Take-Off (Portugal, ceased publication)

Asian Aviation (Singapore) http://www.asianaviation.com

Aerosvijet (Croatia) http://www.aerosvijet.com

SA Flyer (South Africa) http://www.saflyermag.co.za

Also, we have sold thousands of books. Some examples where you can get them (I haven’t had the time to search for all the places and ommited wholesalers, Amazon, those without a webshop and those where there is no direct link, but I hope you get the picture):

http://www.shopeaa.com/publications_fiction.aspx

http://www.pilotstore.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=2110&DEPARTMENT_ID=55

http://thehangar.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=10_268

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/menus/bv/books_comics.html

http://www.flightstore.co.uk/books/use/brand.CWINGS

http://www.afeonline.com/shop/index.php?cPath=38_163

http://skyfox.de/index.php?cat=c147_Humor-Humor.html

http://www.watschinger.at/pilotstore/de/Literatur/Cartoons-Unterhaltung.html

http://www.flyby.pt/index.php?cPath=46_80_94

http://www.friebe.aero/LuftfahrtLiteratur,_Kalender/3,2,26,95,0,0,0,1.html

http://www.boutique.aero/article.aero?id=5972

http://www.siebert.aero/Katalog/Karten-Medien/Allgemeine-Literatur-Dokumentationen-Poster/Humor

http://www.eisenschmidt.de/index.php?cPath=60_67

http://www.aeroware.de/product_info.php?info=p5471_CHICKEN-WINGS-2---FULL-THROTTLE.html

http://www.shop4pilots.com/BUeCHER---KALENDER/Satire---Comics/

http://www.aviationmegastore.com/aviation-humorcomics/cat/?shopid=LM4f6b73c5c620064a7799a99461&parent_id=11

http://pilotshop.nl/contents/en-uk/d56.html#p1161

Last, but not least, for what it’s worth: Our website has an Alexa Rating of around 800,000, Google Page Rank of 4, and over 5.500 daily visitors.--Stefthechef (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You're kidding, right? I have 3 books of their comics in front of me now. Want me to upload photos? How about we find a stack of magazines this comic appears in & upload photos. All this plus references to their site online from sites such as FlightTime Radio and more (just Google link:chickenwingscomics.com). Falcon124 (Take that runway, and that, and that...) (talk) 12:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not that kind of thing. We know the comic exists, but what we need are secondary sources. I.E., not the comic itself. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well hopefully the list Stefan uploaded below is sufficient to demonstrate secondary sources as they're definitely talking about the comic & the guys :) 118.209.29.158 (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Summing up the articles about us. A few were already mentioned, and I’ve scanned and uploaded a couple more. There are more our there, but I can’t remember them all and/or don’t have physical copies available.

EAA Timeless Voices with Michael Strasser - November 2011 http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=1303281451001

“On Board” interview with Stefan Strasser - Issue 6/2011 http://www.chickenwingscomics.com/media/aua-onboard.jpg (in German)

fliegerweb.com: Chicken Wings, der Comic für Flieger http://www.fliegerweb.com/airliner/news/artikel.php?show=news-6541

Flighttime Radio - January 1st, 2011, Show 155 http://www.flighttimeradio.com/Pods.xml or here: http://www.chickenwingscomics.com/media/Flighttime-Radio-Show-155.mp3

Autopilot Magazine - August 2010 Online article: http://autopilotmagazine.com/displayArticle.php?refKey=article1295559754 PDF version: http://www.chickenwingscomics.com/misc/Autopilot-Magazine-Aug-2010.pdf

ViA Airport Journal Graz - Issue 2/2008 http://www.chickenwingscomics.com/media/via-airportjournal.jpg (in German)

Review of one of our books on Avweb.com: http://www.avweb.com/whatsnew/06-02.html --Stefthechef (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It's a well written article with more than adequate sourcing. Plus, it is a well known comic within the aviation community. I see no reason for it to be deleted. Braniff747SP (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm one of the reader of this webcomic. Apart from the Internet, I know it's mainly printed in aviation magazines, just because it deals with aviation stuff (FAA rules, cliches about the pilots,...). I know Chicken Wings because I'm fond of planes. I also read Ctrl+Alt+Del webcomic -which talks about gaming- because I'm a gamer. Why should we keep Ctlr+Alt+Del and delete Chicken Wings ? Because there are more gamers than pilots on Earth ? --Flappiefh (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a very weak argument. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Chicken Wings serves a very clearly defined audience - I can't think of another aviation-themed webcomic. (And it's funny!) Alice Stewart (talk) 09:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And that's a policy-based reason to keep how? Don't get me wrong, I'd really like to see this article kept, but we need verifiable, reliable sources, that are not the comic and related media themselves, to establish that this is notable enough to be kept. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to 1992 National League Championship Series. —SW— ^confess 18:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1992 National League Championship Series Game 7[edit]

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

Similar to the discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game Six of the 2011 World Series, this is an article about a single game in a notable series, where there is no indication that this single game meets WP:SPORTSEVENT, as it is not held as any more notable than any other LCS Game 7. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 1992 National League Championship Series any sourced content that is appropriate. Leave this article as a redirect to preserve attribution per WP:MERGE. Rlendog (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user seems to be following me around and looking for articles of mine to delete. I have to say I don't care. It was things like this that caused me to leave Wikipedia in the first place and this little adventure is only reminding me why. Vidor (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "following you around". ~~You~~ An editor pointed out this article to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 1992 National League Championship Series. My initial reaction was against the deletion, but upon looking at the Series article I think that a lot of the material in the Game 7 article would better fit into the Series article. The Game 7 article should be cherry-picked for relevant material and reliable sources before deleting and redirecting, however.--RDavi404 (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It appears to me that the nominator's interpretation of WP:SPORTSEVENT is incorrect. Except for the last sentence, that section of WP:ATH is defining events that are considered "inherently notable"—that is, events for which the presumption is that an article should exist. The last sentence says that regular season games "are not inherently notable"—that is, the presumption is that there should not be an article. This game is neither the final series nor a regular season game. Since this game doesn't appear to fit the criteria for either being "inherently notable," or "not inherently notable," it appears that the decision needs to be based on other criteria, such as WP:GNG. The game received substantial coverage from reliable sources, nationally and internationally, so I believe that it meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. BRMo (talk) 04:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All of these games get coverage; SPORTSEVENT says it needs to be above and beyond routine coverage, which this is not. LCS and WS games get substantial coverage routinely. Otherwise, you're saying that every postseason game should get its own article. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did not say that every postseason game should get its own article. I said that WP:SPORTSEVENT does not preclude a postseason game from having its own article if it receives sufficient coverage. (The guideline mentions, for example, "front page coverage outside of the local areas involved.") Checking Google News archives, for many papers it's hard to tell what page the story ran on, but here's a story that ran on the front page in Fort Lauderdale ([2]) BRMo (talk) 05:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to 1992 National League Championship Series. Unnecessary fork of the NLCS article. Reso lute 13:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Resolute...William 17:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the main article.There should be no precedent set to create individual articles for individual games.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not enough significant coverage. JDDJS (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do agree that this is not the absolute most significant of games out there, however this kind of thing falls under WP:BOLD for me. WP:SPORTSEVENT appears to be marginally satisfied, so the real issue is that people don't want articles for each game. Why is there an article for each episode of tv shows then? That seems very routine, yet it's never an issue. Here we have a decently significant postseason game 7 and people are saying that we cannot have this. That's counterproductive; if we are able to expand on games like this, then I say go for it. Almost all of the sources check out and someone took the time to compile the information into this article. It's not like this is some pointless game or even close to it. The coverage is there, so I don't find it in the best interest of Wikipedia to be removing stuff like this. RoadView (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main article as an unnecessary content fork. Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 10:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. B music ian 03:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confluence (software)[edit]

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

Notability of this software is not established. All the references are either primary, obscure or don't quilify for in depth coverage. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christ. Don't you have other problems? I hate how Wikipedia paladins go on everyones nerves with their deletion crusade. Isn't the purpose of this web site to collect information? Why do you want to destroy it? --Demonkoryu (talk) 09:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this site is to collect information on notable topics and to avoid collecting other information. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Establishing notability is just a matter of looking for sources. For starters, here is a review by eWeek. Confluence 4.0 has been described as "now leading the pack of enterprise wikis and pushing into the field of top enterprise social software platforms" by SocialSoftwareMatrix.org. And here is a comparison by Computerwoche (in German) of Sharepoint, Confluence and Jive. --Lambiam 09:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't think that indiscriminate collection of collaboration software reviews or comparison of three platforms helps in determining notability. The eWeek reference probably counts, though it is clearly an exempt from press release. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have no idea why you call this "indiscriminate collection". Unlike you, I do think that finding Confluence included as one of just a few platforms in an in-depth comparison by a reliable source does help towards establishing its notability. --Lambiam 10:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The WP:INDISCRIMINATE policy is about avoiding collections of raw data such as specification tables and statistics. The contextual critical commentary provided by the reliable sources (ComputerWoche -translated- and socialsoftwarematrix) found by Lambian is enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Also Social Media Marketing For Dummies describes it as "emergent enterprise social software" that is "becoming an established player", so it certainly has received significant attention. Diego (talk) 11:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The point about the indiscriminate collection was not about WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The idea behind WP:GNG is that the software was considered notable enough to get mentioned. In fact that means that we delegate the decision on determining notability of a subject to the reliable sources. Thus the article on site that mentions all collaboration software available (www.socialsoftwarematrix.org) should not be used for determining notability, as the principle of subject choice clearly demonstrates the lack of notability evaluation by this source. P.S.: the phrase "emergent enterprise social software that is becoming an established player" is an implication of WP:MILL, so I wouldn't consider this source to indicate notability of the subject. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, can you point me where in the notability guidelines is included this "principle of subject choice" for which comprehensive coverage of a topic by a reliable source means that the source can't notice subjects in the topic enough to write about them? That criterion is not reasonable; it would imply that we couldn't use the Encyclopedia Britannica as confering notability about words, not The New York Times about events, because those sources aim for comprehensive coverage of every word and every noteworthy event.

No, the idea (and the letter) of WP:GNG is that "no original research is needed to extract the content", that we have enough of this content from secundary sources, and that "we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic." All these conditions are met with the availabe sources. (You will notice that WP:MILL is an essay; I personally think that several of their provisions are contrary to the Notability guideline, so they're not very good advice at AfDs. See WP:SNOWFLAKE for an essay stating the opposite, this time with arguments based on WP:GNG). Diego (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you want the bureaucratic approach at policy, per WP:GNG "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below". In order to prove the correctness of this presumption please explain, what is this software notable for? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For appearing at ComputerWoche, Social Media Marketing For Dummies, eWeek, and Socialsoftwarematrix, who noticed the sofware enough to write about it? Given that it's not excluded under What Wikipedia is not, the presumption of notability granted by the WP:GNG means that we should attempt to follow it and keep the article, unless we build a consensus here that we should skip this particular article. (If by "what is this notable for" you mean "why is it important", I'd say that being used by Adobe Systems, Bloomberg LP, Cisco Systems, IBM, Johns Hopkins University, SAP AG, Sun Microsystems, United Nations and Weill Cornell Medical College gives it a head start; but please understand that the Notability guideline doesn't care about what you or me think about the software importance, that's why it delegates to reliable sources as you pointed out). Diego (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of us definitely misreads the WP:N. As I get the phrase "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below" means that if the topic meets WP:GNG and WP:NOT, it is presumed notable unless there is a reason to think otherwise. In this case the reason is that the article about this software can't be substantially different from the article on the software genre, as this software doesn't differ substantially from all the other similar software of the genre. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"We can't have this article because it will look like another one" is easily the most surrealist reason for deletion I've seen at AfD. We're reading the notability guideline in exactly the same way; it's just that the reason you give to delete per WP:NOT is not actually in WP:NOT. (We don't have an article on the "software genre" Enterprise wikis BTW, just one section at Wiki software. This article is substantially different to the other articles for software listed there, as they belong to different companies and have been created using different technologies). Diego (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"as they belong to different companies and have been created using different technologies" — that was the point. It is all the difference, which at best warrants mention in parent topic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a well-established product under active development. I am quite willing to do the groundwork of looking for sources. QA Eric (talk) 14:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is one of the most common and popular wiki software packages and there is a large number of reliable sources that speak about it. Nomination of an article that so obviously passes WP:V and the general notability guideline is frivolous and bordering on disruptive. Steven Walling • talk 21:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I just added three substantial books that verify key facts about Confluence, and one of them has an entire chapter about the software. Steven Walling • talk 22:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, from reliable sources I may conclude that it can "one of the most common and popular wiki software packages" only if the phrase "most common and popular wiki software packages" refers to all wiki software. Still, if it is indeed popular, may be you could at least take care to rewrite Features section not to rely on primary sources? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - From your comments and use of the "primary sources" tag, it seems to me that you don't fully understand how primary sources work. They are perfectly valid and considered reliable for self-description, especially in articles about themselves. There's nothing wrong with a section that relies on primary sources as long as it complies with all requirements at Wikipedia:SELFPUB. There's no need to rewrite that section since it doesn't make any exceptional claim, only a list of the main features as documented and advertised by the company. Diego (talk) 05:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, but self-published sources (eg., expert's blog) and primary sources (eg. company's site) are different type of sources, with the latter explained in WP:PRIMARY: "Any interpretation of primary source material may require a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - True, but there's nothing interpretative at the Confluence (software)#Features section. Its contents are a direct assertion of the software intended capabilities by the company that created it. I'd say the official web site is both a primary source and self-published and talking about themselves, unless you count the site as a reliable source. In neither case a third party, secondary source is required. Diego (talk) 15:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've been quite active at copyediting and clean-up of the article, BTW. Does it mean that you find its current notability state acceptable now? Diego (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose its inclusion due to lack of "any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education" (WP:NCORP), though I have to admit that it passed WP:GNG. Regarding the primary sources: the linked policy requests that primary sources should be "used with care", which is quite opposite to having the section entirely sourced to primary sources. I actually wrote an essay on this a while ago. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. Jonathunder (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP. B music ian 03:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Global storm activity of mid 2010[edit]

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

These 'Global storm activities' articles are well-sourced, however, this article has events in it that aren't even major and also some well-noticed spelling mistakes that haven't even been spotted.

For example, the May 10 section is almost completely copied from the 2010 South China floods article.
"The deceased people were: Aligayib Aliyev and his wife, Gulbaji Aliyeva." doesn't even need to be there.
"In the southern Serbia, two people, Vukosava Stamenkovic and her husband and Radovan Zlatkovic, from the town of Trgoviste drowned in the flooded the Pcinja River." same with this.
"On May 17, one people died in the Hungarian town of Miskolc" Major spelling mistake.
The May 18-June 1 section has been copied from the 2010 Central European floods.
"A large dust storm swept across both Libya and Egypt on May 26" Now that is something that happens like every few months.
"The Miami based National Hurricane Centre issued an advisory that the storm had strengthened, with maximum sustained winds of 45 miles per hour (75 km/h) or more during the next 48 hours" wow, an advisory!
"On May 30, light thunder storms hit parts of Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire as temperatures begin to rise in Southern England and Greater London." That happens every summer, temperatures rise.
And look! The May 18-June 1 section makes a second appearance in the article!

Now obviously I am not going to publish every bad thing in the article because this page would be thousands of bytes long.

Bruvtakesover (T|C) 22:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not cleanup. You can go fix them yourself if you find factual errors or unnecessary content. As nominator states, it is "well-sourced". A412 (Talk • C) 22:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I'll spend over a year fixing these problems. Bruvtakesover
  - Indeed you may. If every article in need of cleanup was deleted, there would likely be only several thousand articles remaining. This is what editing is for. A412 (Talk • C) 20:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(T|C) 16:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with A412 the stuff you mentioned could easily be removed since your so good at pointing them out. I think this just needs some devouted users to fix it up JayJay^{Talk to me} 23:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Hawkins (radio presenter)[edit]

The result was keep. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Ibrahim (footballer)[edit]

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

Article has been unsourced since 2009, can't find any reliable sources to verify that player existed TonyStarks (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. TonyStarks (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced BLP. BLPPROD doesn't apply, but due to an absence of sources to verify this individual's notability (or existence), there is no option but to delete. Cloudz 679 11:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Player, if exists, fails WP:GNG. Jared Preston (talk) 12:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:11, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL; no evidence of notability. ~Feedintm^Parley 13:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It would be helpful if people making such confident claims that the subject fails notability guidelines could tell us what evidence they are basing those claims on, for example by detailing where they have looked for sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean with regards to WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL? Or both? Mattythewhite (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 570 (Missouri)[edit]

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

PROD contested by author; original rationale was: There is only one proposal for this designation, and the proposal hasn't risen to the level where it could actually come to pass. This fails WP:GNG as a result because there hasn't been multiple, independent sources documenting it. This appears to be a pipe dream discussed vaguely on the local level without any actual indication in WP:RS that this designation is being actively pursued. Exit list is pretty obviously original research. Kinu ^t/_c 21:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note the creator's only contributions are this article and related inclusion of I-570 in other places: the I-70 3DI template, the article on the list of 3DIs, and even including it in the exit list. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—as PROD-er. I found only one single news item discussing this proposal, which tells me that this concept fails WP:GNG because there aren't multiple, independent sources covering it. There aren't even multiple non-indepedent sources covering it. There is a self-published website that repeated and elaborated on the proposal from the RS. Imzadi 1979 → 21:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete where's the verifiability? --Rs chen 7754 21:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. With only one proposal and no signs that this has been seriously considered, there's no indication this will be a road anytime soon, and the proposal itself fails the GNG. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 22:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Until propsoals like this are approved and have gained the necessary funding, we should have no article. This usually applies to stations on suburban rail schemes, but is just as applicable to a road. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Future Interstate Highways. The fact this is proposed is verifiable via a reliable source; while as mentioned above there is insufficent notability for an article of its own, there is no reason why a one-paragraph blurb in the future/proposed article cannot be had. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While there is a reliable source mentioning the proposal of the road, it is not a formal proposal and should not have an article. Maybe a brief mention in Interstate 70 in Missouri is possible. Dough 48 72 14:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Carnatic instrumentalists[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced, orphaned, spammy. Trimming to the notable entries would make it too short to qualify as a list. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question I counted fifty-eight blue links for individuals on that list, and even some featured lists (e.g. List of counties in Wyoming) have substantially fewer entries than that. Do you mean that many of the fifty-eight aren't notable, or that they should be trimmed from this for issues unrelated to notability, or do you simply mean something completely different? Nyttend (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Might need editing/referencing, but it's a legitimate subject for a page, and there's no reason why it couldn't be fully referenced. What grounds are there for saying it would be too short if trimmed to notable names? --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , list has clear scope. If it gets too unwieldy it might be best split by instrument, but there isn't really a valid reason to delete. pablo 16:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This was closed by a non-admin as "keep", but I have undone this and relisted the discussion per WP:NACD. Three opinions split 2:1 are insufficient to determine consensus one way or the other. Sandstein 20:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Decent notable subject for a list and this list contains a good spread of blue-linked names across the instrument headings. Most such lists attract spam addtions but that can be dealt with by normal editing. AllyD (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - contains enough notable people and good spread across all instruments. --VasuVR (talk, contribs) 03:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Agree with Vasu, contains enough notable musicians. Will try to link this article to few more articles. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 17:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. No prejudice against a redirect being created. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AR 635-200[edit]

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

Article does not in my opinion, meet the criteria for inclusion into the encyclopedia, specifically Notability. There is not, and I believe cannot be significant independent coverage of a regulation. The notable exception would be the DADT policy, which is only notable because of the public interest of issues it dealt with. A user removed the Prod tag, with reason, but I don't believe it is in line with policy. The subject may be of interest, indeed, I found it because I was searching for the subject, but interest does not mean the article should exist. I would accept a merger, but I dont think an article about military regulations would be notable as well. Should it be an article on all service regulations worldwide (as we shouldnt make it US centric) What regulations should be covered? Enlistment regulations would be of interest, medical regulations, security regulations, ect. It would open a huge can of worms. Sephiroth storm (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: May the content be sensibly merged into Military discharge? (Incidentally, Military discharge is 99% US-specific, so may need to be renamed...). -- Vmenkov (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment" Possibly, but while the act of military discharge is interesting, there is no claim of notability, and the lack of third party sources is in indicator that the subject may not meet the general notability guideline. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; perhaps an external link to AR 635-200 can be left at the Military discharge article if it isn't there already, this article be Deleted, and a redirect be left in its place to Military discharge#United States. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Wikipedia is not a directory of obscure bureaucratic regulations. Nick-D (talk) 06:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 00:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Breana McDow[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

References are all either self published (such as blogs, etc) or press releases, or trivial mentions, none of which establish notability. This actress and model seems not to have enough reliable coverage to meet the notability bar. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence things are significantly different since last time it was deleted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a profile for a working model, but lacks the coverage to establish the subject as a notable working model. -- Whpq (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The coverage in the articles does not connote notability. She gets a brief mention in one or two, but that's it. Good luck, Breana - acting as a career is rough. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads more as her resume than an encyclopedia article.--LAA Fan 22:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Micro ball grid array[edit]

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

This article was created as a copy-paste of an EU project's webpages. After removing the WP:COPYVIO the article was WP:PRODded on grounds "Unreferenced article about a project, lacking reliable sources to demonstrate its notability." Subsequently the same editor uploaded the same copy-paste text as MBGA, Ubga (both speedied) and Micro BGA (now a redirect), before overwriting this article and its tags including the Prod notice with the pasted text again. I'm treating that last change as a disputed Prod and bringing it to AfD, on the same rationale as the earlier Prod: despite the flurry of versions of the same, the article still lacks anything denoting notability. AllyD (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - should have been speedied per WP:CSD#A1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wer900 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The same editor has created yet another version of MBGA tonight; now flagged as a speedy on grounds on copyright violation. AllyD (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find information about micro ball grid arrays, but not coverage about this project in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There could perhaps be a thought of repurposing Micro ball grid array to serve as an overview on the field in general rather than this project, but I reckon the existing Ball grid array article already serves that purpose (although - like so much else - under-referenced). AllyD (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would expect that any material about micro ball grid arrays should be developed at the ball grid array article first. -- Whpq (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ball grid array until it is clear that a separate article is merited. --Kvng (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Why a merge? There is no indication that this reseaqrch project has had sufficient impact or any sort of notice that would indicate that it needs to be mentioned at Ball grid array. There is no content in this article that is actually about micro ball grid arrays. -- Whpq (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You are right, there's no way to do the merge. Nothing salvageable. Notability not established. --Kvng (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

World Football Elo Ratings leaders[edit]

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

Unreferenced, irrelevant as the elo-rankings weren existint pre 1997 and no info or mention of notability. 1:1 copy of website it seems Koppapa (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A list of what would have been. Nothing encyclopaedic about that. Cloudz 679 11:40, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced and unnecessary content fork. Giant Snowman 13:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wako-Pro World Grand Prix 2011: Hungary vs Croatia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There is no indication of why this event is notable. It clearly fails WP:EVENT and WP:ROUTINE since it is simply routine sports reporting. A similar article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wako-Pro World Grand Prix 2011: Romania vs Italy (2nd nomination). Astudent0 (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Astudent0 (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : as per WP:MMAEVENT individual events are not inherently notable, the coverage is routine in nature. This event lacks any lasting effect. Mt king ^(edits) 07:30, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Should WP:MMAEVENT be applied to a kickboxing event? Your other arguments are okay, just curious since kickboxing has it's own WP:KICK with its own notability guidelines, though it appears to be even less active than WP:MMA. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not sure WP:MMAEVENT is the right reference, but WP:EVENT is. Also, the kickboxing notability guidelines indicate that an event should be on the scale of the K-1 individual world championships to be truly notable, while this event is very minor. It was to be part of an 8 nation tournament, but they couldn't get enough countries interested, so they cancelled the tournament and held some individual matches. Papaursa (talk) 23:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be nothing more than routine sports coverage, as others have noted. It is perhaps worth mentioning that in reviewing unassessed martial arts articles at the end of 2011, I found what appears to be a large number of WAKO events that appear to just be routine coverage. I have not yet had time to go through and review those thoroughly. Janggeom (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monmouth Leisure Centre[edit]

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

Permastub and declined PROD. Unsourced except for a link to the article's website Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 16:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - a news article has been added to the article. A town's main leisure centre will obviously get a lot of listings, as is evidenced by a Google search, but personally I would prefer at least two independent reliable and in-depth news sources before advocating 'keep'. The Centre is already listed in the Monmouth article, which seems the best place for it. Sionk (talk) 11:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's a local community centre without substantial coverage. Some coverage in the local paper is insufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Monmouth. This is usually the best solution for local facilities. It surprises me that the school where it is located does not have a page yet. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable at all $Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)$ 09:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies Room (film)[edit]

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 00:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Sam Rizk[edit]

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

notability in question, article has been speedy deleted before, can't find third party sources to back up claims made in article Karl 334 ^{☞Talk ☜} 15:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - this seems to be an advert. --Salimfadhley (talk) 16:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, salt if necessary, non-notable advert. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find verification of the article's claims at Google Scholar or at Pub Med. He does have publications (BTW he appears in author listings as Rizk SS) but they do not appear to be heavily cited or groundbreaking. Google News finds press releases. --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pure advertising, non-notable; article makes many non-verifiable claims. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 04:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to 2011 World Series#Game 6. There is clearly a lot of emotion about this topic coming from several editors, but in the end this AfD needs to be decided based on policy and on the strength of the arguments given on both sides. On a simple headcount, the group of editors who believe that the article should be deleted/merged/redirected is somewhat larger than those who believe it should be kept as is. Somewhat larger, but not overwhelmingly larger. So, looking at the arguments: those supporting a merge/redirect make the case that the coverage for this game is routine when compared to the coverage of other individual world series games. They also make the case that few (or none) of other WS games have their own articles, and that the content of the article is mostly a play-by-play recap of the game, which is not encyclopedic. Neither of these arguments are convincingly refuted. The keep !voters rationale hinges mainly on the emotional aspect of the game, i.e. that it was an exciting game. But none of the keep voters advance an argument for why this particular game should have an article while most (or all) of other WS games do not. In other words, what unique event transpired in this game which sets it so far apart from other individual games? This question was never answered during the AfD. The article has some good content though, and the relevant content should be moved to the article on the series. —SW— ^yak 19:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Game Six of the 2011 World Series[edit]

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

I'm sorry to do this, because it's a good faith effort that took some work, but this doesn't meet our guidelines. This game is not notable independent of the 2011 World Series, where there already is a brief synopsis of this game. Further, this fails WP:SPORTSEVENT as it's not the final game, it was part of the final series, and there is no evidence that it is considered to be notable outside of routine coverage for a World Series game. As exciting as it was, it doesn't get its own article. Even Baseball Reference Bullpen doesn't give the game its own individual article. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect I don't know of any single baseball game to have it's own article. Furthermore the page is majority just a recap of each inning of the game. Seems just like an television episode article to me that is entirely plot summary, and those are usually redirected. JDDJS (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Game 7 of the 1992 NLCS has its own article, and as much as I thought it would be deleted at some point, that one hasn't even been nominated. Furthermore, this article has a lot of sources to back it up. While the event is still rather recent, this game will probably be remembered for years to come. For all these reasons (and there are probably others), this article should stay. User:Davidfreesefan23 (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, Muboshgu was the same user who reverted my edits (twice!) when I tried to expand the summary of Game 6 in the main 2011 World Series article to give readers more information. If I were an admin, I'd have him blocked for disruption. User:Davidfreesefan23 (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First off, "other stuff exists" is not a valid reason to keep an article. I was unaware of that 1992 NLCS Game 7 article, but I'll nominate it now for the same reasons I nominated this one. As for my editing, Wikipedia is not for game recaps, which is what you were adding. Those edits, and this page, are not in keeping with Wikipedia's stated mission. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, am I to understand that before Muboshgu felt the need to delete this article, he/she felt the need to delete material related to this game on the main 2011 World Series page? So I can presume that if this article gets deleted, and I go to appropriately expand the Game 6 subsection on the 2011 World Series page, that Muboshgu will follow me and delete that too? Vidor (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How could the article on 1992 NLCS Game 7 have survived almost 2 years without so much as being nominated? That is something I am very puzzled about myself. It just doesn't make any sense. User:Davidfreesefan23 (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it never came to anyone's attention doesn't mean it should stay. Article age is another argument to avoid in deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are categories for individual baseball games and individual World Series games. Presumably those categories are allowed to be populated, and in fact they have. Ido not even know how to respond to the allegation that "there is no evidence that it is considered to be notable". I provided five sources calling this the best Workd Series game of all time. Vidor (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can't compare this game to the individual games listed in that category, which are baseball lore (Ruth Called Shot, Mays catch, Gibson Home Run) not typical World Series games. Honestly half the articles in that category aren't games at all (thus doesn't belong there), and there's a few other games that articles should be created and listed (Buckner for example), and while the game was exiting, there's no evidence this game will be historically mentioned years from now as baseball lore. This is a merge and redirect case here. Secret ^account 22:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can compare those games and I did. Game 6 has become lore. There are four occasions in all of World Series history where a player drove in the tying run with his team one out from elimination, and two of those four times came in this game. Vidor (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel that the game easily deserves an article. This isn't just my case of WP:ILIKEIT. Many sources (ESPN among them) seem to agree that this game is an instant classic. User:Davidfreesefan23 (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge content into 2011 World Series as appropriate. The 2011 World Series is notable, but per WP:SPORTSEVENT, Game 6 is insufficiently notable to warrant a stand-alone article. (I do agree that it was a great game, but that's not enough.) Terence7 (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not just personal opinion. There are reliable sources on high-profile sports websites that say things like that. For example, here. User:Davidfreesefan23 (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial opinion at the time of the event does not establish long-term notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Muboshgu is right about that. Terence7 (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the "delete" !vote if the suggestion is to merge the content. If the content is merged, the original needs to be kept as a redirect to preserve attribution. Rlendog (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but if it's merged, that means the content is removed from the Game 6 article. That's all I meant. Terence7 (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2011 World Series any sourced content that is appropriate. Leave this article as a redirect to preserve attribution per WP:MERGE. Rlendog (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable Terence7 is plainly incorrect above, per WP:SPORTSEVENT this article meets that guideline. I repeat, I produced five sources that called this the greatest World Series game of all time. I can find more. It won't be hard. I find it absurd beyond expression that one fielding play from a game apparently is safe in its own article, but this game is not. Or that Armando Galarraga, who didn't even pitch a perfect game, gets his own article for NOT throwing a perfect game, but this article isn't notable. An article about a first-round playoff game by a team that didn't even win the World Series that year is listed as a good article (!!!) but this article has to go. A regular season game that did not even decide a playoff spot is secure in its own article, but this game has to go. I suggest that if this article does not clear the judgements of Wikipedia then the categories "World Series games" and "Major League Baseball games" should be deleted, as should all articles within. Editorial opinion at the time of the event does not establish long-term notability. Who are you to say that? Is the suggestion here that there needs to be a time delay? If so, can I get a ruling on how long that time delay has to be so I can come back and post this article again in 10 or 20 years? Maybe I can set the alarm on my bed for 2031. Vidor (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Four individuals in the history of baseball have hit a walkoff homer when their team was facing elimination: Bill Mazeroski in 1960, Carlton Fisk in 1975, Kirby Puckett in 1991 and David Freese in 2011. And we are told this article isn't notable. Mind-boggling. Vidor (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree with you, Vidor. Keep the article and end this debate. User:Davidfreesefan23 (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC) struck repeat !vote; while you are allowed to comment as many times as you want you may only !vote once in a discussion. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 03:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find this argument interesting, since none of the four games you mention have an article, except this one. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I see a need for an article of the Mazeroski game, as that's typically considered among the greatest games, and one the biggest shockers in World Series history by top historians (like Harvey Frommer and Jerome Holtzman) and people who been involved in baseball for many years, and it's considered to be the biggest home run of all time by ESPN. But the other two that you mentioned, while memorable, they fit perfectly fine on the proper World Series game. Just because a few sportswriters said it's the best World Series game they ever seen doesn't mean it's to the level of being an "iconic" game. Secret ^account 03:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I respectfully refute the notion that Game 6 of the 2011 World Series is, "not notable independent of the 2011 World Series". Under the guideline of "Individual games or series" on WP:SPORTSEVENT, bullet point four states, "A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage of each game, especially if the game received front page coverage outside of the local areas involved (e.g. Pacers-Pistons brawl or the Blood in the Water match). I offer these independent reliable sources as evidence of it's notability: [3], [4], [5], [6]. Link one was written by national sports writer Gene Wojciechowski, who has worked for ESPN since 1992. On link #2, Paul White, a writer for national USA Today, outlines the individual moments of Game 6 that make it a contender for "greatest Series game ever". The third link from the Washington Post includes quotes from the game's participants themselves, solidifying the extraordinary nature of Game 6, including a quote from player Daniel Descalso saying, "That’s gotta be one for the record books". The fourth link shows that even the BBC took note of the game.

If that isn't enough evidence to end this outrageous deletion request, the following are reasons I can offer as to why this article should not be deleted:

It meets bullet point four of "Individual games or series" on WP:SPORTSEVENT, as I've noted above.
The article is part of WP: St. Louis Cardinals's stated mission to "record, preserve, and organize the history of the St. Louis Cardinals and that of all articles related to the team on Wikipedia." A dedicated article for Game 6 will prevent too much information about this particular game from overwhelming the flow of the 2011 World Series article. Wikiproject St. Louis Cardinals supports this article, and strongly condemns any attempts to remove information about the team's history from English Wikipedia that are referenced and made in good faith. Wikipedia St. Louis Cardinals views this deletion request as an infringement on the project's ability, and right, to compile the team's history on English Wikipedia. If a deletion were approved, it would constitute a violation of our Project's right to free speech, such as was done to our Cardinals Care, a deletion that occurred with little discussion and without notification to relevant parties. While I'd rather spend time being productive & working on Bob Gibson's article, I will happily resubmit & recreate this article on a continuing basis should the deletion request be approved in order to ensure WP: St. Louis Cardinals's right to compile and record information continue.
As Muboshgu said themselves, the article and subsequent edits were created in good faith. Therefore, I strongly feel there's no justifiable reason to impede the progress of this article. After all, Jimbo Wales has always encouraged editors to "be bold"; it's nit-picking like this that I contend has stifled innovation on the wiki since about 2008; I contend editors formerly had much more freedom to contribute to the wiki how & where they wanted, which contributed Wikipedia's notability and success. The deletion of this article would essentially refute the freedom of editors to create & edit as they see fit, and contradict the very nature of what a wiki is. Moreover, I ask how could the existence of this good faith, referenced article be of any concern to other editors? It's no skin off your back if this article is allowed to exist with accurate, referenced info! Monowi (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. The coverage you provide does not indicate that it is beyond the routine coverage a World Series game would receive. You are quoting pieces written in the immediate aftermath of the game, which don't have the proper context. Daniel Descalso's opinion of the game, also, is completely irrelevant.
2. The mission statement of WP:St. Louis Cardinals does not override Wikipedia policy.
3. I don't see how my recognizing good faith overrules policy, either. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Monowi, regarding your point #2 above, please see WP:FREESPEECH. I didn't write that, so don't shoot the messenger, but it addresses your comments regarding freedoms and rights on Wikipedia. Also, if you "resubmit & recreate this article on a continuing basis" if it is deleted as a result of this discussion, it may be deleted under speedy deletion criterion G4, and repeatedly reposting the article is grounds for blocking as disruptive. Again, I didn't make this rule up so don't shoot the messenger. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 03:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, it'll probably soon be time for Muboshgu to concede that any attempt to delete this article will be futile. Monowi's arguments DID sound rather convincing, if you ask me. User:Davidfreesefan23 (talk) 03:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this AfD "futile" since it seems that the consensus that's building is that this shouldn't be a stand alone article? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The consensus is not building towards deletion. In fact, there seem to be plenty of good "keep" arguments. It seems pretty clear that you just don't want a stand-alone article. I can see right through your arguments, Muboshgu. You just seem to be rehashing the same point over and over. User:Davidfreesefan23 (talk) 04:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Davidfreesefan23 your battleground mentality and borderline civility in this AFD don't help your cause. This isn't a WP:SNOW keep your talking about. Secret ^account 05:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It appears to me that the nominator's interpretation of WP:SPORTSEVENT is incorrect. Except for the last sentence, that section of WP:ATH is defining events that are considered "inherently notable"—that is, events for which the presumption is that an article should exist. The last sentence says that regular season games "are not inherently notable"—that is, the presumption is that there should not be an article. This game is neither the final series nor a regular season game. Since this game doesn't appear to fit the criteria for either being "inherently notable," or "not inherently notable," it appears that the decision needs to be based on other criteria, such as WP:GNG. The game received substantial coverage from reliable sources, nationally and internationally, so I believe that it meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. BRMo (talk) 04:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And the coverage this game received was routine for a World Series game, meaning it all should be contained on the WS article in question. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think the coverage qualifies as "outside routine coverage" - there were substantive articles in almost all national newspapers. The guideline also mentions "front page coverage" - I'm finding it difficult to determine from Google news which page the articles appeared on, but I suspect some of them appeared on the front page of newspapers outside of St. Louis and Dallas. BRMo (talk) 05:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2011 World Series, merging all relevant content. The events that unfolded in game six are best understood within the context of the overall series; the game is notable as a part of the entire championship series. The resulting article would be a reasonable size that would not warrant creating a spin-off article. isaacl (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to 2011 World Series. As much as I support the sports almanac aspects of Wikipedia, this is an unnecessary fork of the World Series article, of which "the history of the St. Louis Cardinals" can easily be maintained without the excessive detail presented here. Reso lute 13:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I, like many people who watched that game to the end, came away with the feeling that I had most likely just witnessed one of the greatest games in World Series history. I still feel this way. Yet the same information is easily covered within the main article. I have seen no reason or argument that would require this single game to have an article all its own.--JOJ ^Hutton 16:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Easily satisfies notability and reliable source requirements. This game received substantial coverage in relation to the other games in the series and therefor warrants the option for a separate article. This is the kind of effort I applaud and feel it provides even more depth to WP. The criticisms really seem like they are looking for any reason to delete an article that details the event of a single game. There are plenty of regular season games with amazing comebacks and other historic events; those are probably where the line should be drawn. But not here, for this very noteworthy World Series game. I would, however, recommend improving the article with a box score, image or two if available, and if appropriately sourced, more historical context such as the odds of the Cardinals coming back and expert/player opinions/reactions on where this game ranks overall and where it ranks as a game 6 to even better establish how significant it is. RoadView (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to 2011 World Series as an unnecessary content fork. Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 10:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to thank everybody that's come here and worked to save this article. I don't know what it says about Wikipedia that ridiculous twaddle like Bale Out gets listed as a featured article while a historic baseball game has to fight to survive. I guess Wikipedia isn't very friendly to baseball fans. The criticisms really seem like they are looking for any reason to delete an article that details the event of a single game. Absolutely. Depressing. I remain gobsmacked that anyone could have watched Game 6 and not believe it was a notable game, especially when other articles about individual games are obviously less noteworthy, like the one about Willie Mays' catch or Kirk Gibson's home run. I would, however, recommend improving the article with a box score, image or two if available, and if appropriately sourced, more historical context such as the odds of the Cardinals coming back When I was writing that article, blissfully ignorant of the fact that it would get put on the chopping block minutes after I posted it, I downloaded an AP photo of Nelson Cruz lunging at Freese's triple. I didn't actually upload it to Wikipedia because I hesitated to post a fair use photo that would probably get deleted--little dreaming that the entire article would get nominated for deletion. Anyway, if the article lives, I very much doubt that there's a free image out there that's useful. If the Cruz photo will pass muster I could upload it. As for the suggestion about comeback probability, that is pretty easy; the Baseball Reference page includes a win probability table. Box score--if I can figure out how to code it I could include a score by innings. Vidor (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Texas had a win probability of 96% after Theriot struck out to start the top of the ninth. 92% after Craig struck out for the second out. 93% after Hamilton's home run, 87% after Theriot grounded out for the second out in the bottom of the 10th. I'm sure someone will tell us that none of that is notable. Vidor (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Oh, and I just noticed that despite writing quite a bit on this page I never actually voted. Vidor (talk) 04:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't decide notability based on probability, that's a terrible reasoning because many games has similar types of probability everyday or worse and that reasoning is clear original research. It's like saying that x game ended with a game winning two run home run after batter A did this than batter B did this and pitcher C had a balk which led to the home run. It's a random occurrence. Also "I never actually voted" AFD is not a vote. Secret ^account 00:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't decide Who's "we"? many games has similar types of probability everyday or worse Factually incorrect. And even if it were correct, which it isn't (I invite you to take a look at how many games involve saves being blown in the ninth inning, then look at how many games involve saves being blown in the ninth and tenth innings), this was not some ordinary day game in June, this was Game 6 of the World Series, with a championship on the line for Texas. I truly cannot believe that it's necessary to defend the notability of this game. AFD is not a vote You might want to tell that to KuyaBriBri above, who wrote the following when he altered a post by DavidFreese23: struck repeat !vote; while you are allowed to comment as many times as you want you may only !vote once in a discussion. Vidor (talk) 06:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although this is a bit of an aside, back in 2005, Baseball Prospectus published a list of improbable post-season comebacks based on win probability (the list was manually compiled from more recent playoff games, so it is non-exhaustive). However, no one is suggesting that the game is not notable, as all World Series games meet Wikipedia's guidelines on notability; the issue under discussion is the best way to relate the events of the game to readers, given that it is part of an overall championship series that provides the context for the game's meaning. isaacl (talk) 07:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"We" is the Wikipedia community. I agree totally with Issacl. The question we should be asking is if the page in question is the best way to convey the events of the game, and I would say it's not. The home run by Freese is important, but the rest of the game wasn't as notable. The whole thing can be covered in less prose at 2011_World_Series#Game_6. That section could be expanded some from where it is now. This is the way we handle most games; only in the most extraordinary of cases would we spin out this game. One offseason doesn't provide us enough context to decide it is that important. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"We" is the Wikipedia community. I don't think so. I think "we" is you and a couple of other people. The home run by Freese is important, but the rest of the game wasn't as notable. Well, this is just silly. The Rangers blew five different leads in this game. They blew saves three different times. There were one, two, three huge hits by the Cardinals in the 9th, 10th, and 11th innings. Attempting to reduce this game to David Freese's home run indicates an agenda to artificially limit the amount of bytes Wikipedia uses to recount this game, and casting about for any excuse to do so. The whole thing can be covered in less prose at 2011_World_Series#Game_6. That section could be expanded some from where it is now. You have already cut out a large section of text from the Game 6 subsection on November 29, 2011. You cut nine paragraphs from the text, nearly five thousand bytes. So it would seem that your agenda here is to enforce a cap on how much we are allowed to talk about the events of Game 6, and that if you succeed in deleting this article, you will most likely return to the 2011 World Series article and hack more from that subsection as well. only in the most extraordinary of cases would we spin out this game Game 6 quite clearly meets the definition of an extraordinary circumstance. One offseason doesn't provide us enough context Silly. I asked upthread how many years we should be required to wait before posting this article. I received no answer. I have also asked how it is that the categories "Major League Baseball games" and "World Series games" are populated with articles that are clearly less notable than Game 6, but those articles are allowed to stand while this one apparently must be deleted. I received no answer on that one either. I bet this AfD would not have been posted if the New York Yankees had been involved in this game. Vidor (talk) 02:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I read that Muboshgu is a fan of the New York Yankees. He clearly doesn't want this article to exist. He nominated it for his own personal reasons. The "reasons" he provided were just flimsy excuses. This is a bad-faith nomination. It should be withdrawn and the nominator indef blocked. User:Davidfreesefan23 (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but requires editing. Article is overly long, and reads like a play-by-play. The last three home runs are all notable, the eight innings before, not so much, and should be greatly condensed. Frorunner9 (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Sattarpour[edit]

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

After research in Persian and English, the subject fails WP:ENT and WP:DIRECTOR. The article is unsourced. Farhikht (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Farhikht (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Farhikht (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, unsourced. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. —SW— ^verbalize 19:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A2Z Group[edit]

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

Not notable. Masses of refs, but most are own-goals or directory listings. Other demonstrate that share of the company are bought and sold. Nothing demonstrates notability as required by WP:CORP. Much is is highly promotion and fails is WP:ARTSPAM Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—This article is a perfect example of how to make something look notable to drive-by reference counters, but in reality there is not a single reliable, third-party reference in the entire lot. Non-notable company. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 15:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please elaborate? Secret of success (talk) 11:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete - Thanks Livitup for your Deletion FAQs [7] it has reaffirmed my conviction that the article deserves a reconsideration and doesn't deserve to be deleted. That said, A2Z Group is a Gurgaon headquartered company that employs more than 30000 employees in the renewable energy production business.

It has many renowned and successful Indian businessmen like Rakesh Jhunjhunwala ^[1], Brij Singh ^[2], etc. on it's director board

Apart from that A2Z Group has invested all its resources in renewable resource generation (Waste to energy) and hence has helped reclaim a lot of waste land and keep many major cities clean. ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] Let me know if I can provide any other information. Willonthemove (talk) 06:14, 9 March 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, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You will find more details about my research on one of A2Z Group's business unit at A2Z Group's talk page. Thanks all! Willonthemove (talk) 10:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I now realize the major cause of confusion! Most editors are searching for references for A2Z Group. A2Z Group as the name suggests is a group of business units and therefore you will find a lot of references for each of its business units namely:-

A2Z Maintenance & Engineering Services Ltd. :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A2Z Infraservices Ltd. :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A2Z Infrastructure Ltd. :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A2Z Powercom Ltd. :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A2Z Powertech Ltd. :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A2Z Water Solutions Ltd. :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A2Z E-Waste Management Ltd. :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A2Z International Ltd. :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A2Z Admire :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A2Z Travel Solutions :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Willonthemove (talk) 07:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Pending~~ Keep - I don't have the patience to go through each and every unique criterion for a company as per WP:CORP, but if at all anything, I think the article seems to satisfy WP:GNG, which is likely to make it encyclopedic and expandable. If many of them are indeed trivial (I believe that one or two list out the company's details), there are still quite a few alternative sources which seem to provide info about it, and instead of rushing on deletion, discussion would be better. Secret of success (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand based on the prior discussion. Thee is fairly certain to be content.This is better than trying to do an article on each constituent company--even if that could be done, it is more helpful to start with this general one. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on similar grounds to DGG. Quite frankly, most of the individual companies probably aren't notable enough to warrant individual articles, but we have this lovely independently-sourced group of them that meets WP:GNG on its own, and the companies are notable enough to be included in a group article. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:02, 20 March 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question and comment. I am gathering from this discussion that this article was subject to a prior deletion discussion and was kept, but I am not finding that nomination, and it does not seem to have been noted on this article's talk page. The current page contains swatches of non-neutral intentional vagueness (e.g. an integrated solution provider for asset management services) that need to be reworked into English or removed if this is kept. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you suggest improvements and I will attempt to modify text accordingly? by William Emmanual | Send me a Message 09:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Weir[edit]

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

Not notable Eiad77 (talk) 05:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article cites exactly three "sources" (looks like more, but each of them is repeated at least twice): one is a dead link (and an unretrievable one, at that, as it's a plain URL with no reference data), one is an unreliable source and one is his own resumé. While he appears to hold a prominent enough position that he might be sufficiently notable if proper sources were present, they aren't — and Google wasn't much help, either, providing plenty of stuff written by him but nothing about him. Delete as unsourced WP:BLP. Bearcat (talk) 05:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN and as Bearcat has noted, the article is effectively unsourced. PK T(alk) 15:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Weir is mentioned briefly to in a small number of scholarly articles (e.g., [8] and books, as well as a number of reliable news sources. I've added a few to the article. Notability might still arguable both any of GNG or SCHOLAR or POLITICIAN alone, but there's certainly more than enough sourcing out there for verification of the basics. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 16:00, 20 March 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep per WP:BARE - clearly fails POLITICIAN, but passes GNG by dint of the sources. Economist for a national party is probably a notable position. 17:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep - the subject appears to pass both WP:GNG and the information in the article is verifiable. Wer900 ^talk_{essay on the definition of consensus} 22:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG, well-sourced, and an economist for a major political party. Canadianism (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Helena Carr[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

the last AfD was 6 years ago. Clearly WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. She is not notable in her own right. LibStar (talk) 08:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment I find it interesting this is listed in politics. Helena Carr is not a politician. It just goes to prove that people think her notability is inherited from being married to a major politician. LibStar (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The category is not "politics" but "politics-related", which is appropriate to the person in question; she is related to politics by marriage. WWGB (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Helena Carr is/was a successful businesswoman in her own right. [9] [10] [11] [12] She does not depend on her husband for her notability. WWGB (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

every one of those article mentions she is Bob Carr's wife during his time as Premier. Take Bob Carr away I doubt the press would be as interested. did the press take an interest in her before he was Premier, no.LibStar (talk) 09:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Helena Carr has deliberately maintained a low public profile, but the extent of the coverage she's received over time means she meets WP:BIO. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP article clearly identifies her as being notable in her own right.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.175.181 (talk • contribs)

WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, would not be notable if she weren't Bob Carr's wife. Notability is not inherited. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Sufficient material here to bring the article over the line. Melburnian (talk) 02:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and would she get that coverage if she was not related to Bob Carr? 02:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

That does not concern me. I've made an assessment on the source material as presented. Melburnian (talk) 02:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it is highly relevant as per WP:NOTINHERITED. relatives of famous people normally get media coverage, but that in itself does not grant notability. LibStar (talk) 03:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does not negate notability either. Melburnian (talk) 03:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact is that she has significant coverage in reliable sources (e.g. the Sydney Morning Herald, as shown by WWGB's links) and meets WP:GNG. As Melburnian points out, WP:NOTINHERITED does not negate notability, it just means "she is the wife of a famous politician" would be a poor argument (one which I don't think anyone is making). "Would she get that coverage if she was not related to Bob Carr?" Well, that's not really for us to decide. But consider this: would Michelle Obama have any coverage in the press if she weren't Barack's wife? No, but that doesn't mean she's not notable. Jenks24 (talk) 12:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Obama is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. she sits on major committees etc. All First Ladies have articles, not all spouses of Australian premiers. Helena Carr has an unremarkable business career, that only gets media attention because she is the wife of Bob Carr. LibStar (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I knew as soon as I mentioned her that I would get WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS thrown at me. I find that to be one of the most overused essays at AfD. The intention of it is to avoid 'apples and oranges' comparisons, e.g. "We have an article on Pikachu and this article is far more important, so it can't be deleted". There is nothing wrong with using other articles as an example when they are similar subjects (e.g. wives of notable politicians). Anyway, my point about Obama was mainly tangential. My main argument remains that Carr meets GNG and NOTINHERITED does not negate notability. Jenks24 (talk) 02:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

my point is the media takes interest in her because she is Bob Carr's wife. the coverage WWWGB provides all coincides with the time when Carr was Premier. I've looked at her business career, it's unremarkable compared to what we would expect business people to have in WP. LibStar (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people are notable only because they are someone's spouse, so I don't see that as a good enough reason to delete. My interpretation of NOTINHERITED is not "you can't be notable for being related to someone famous", but rather "just being related to someone famous does not make you automatically notable", i.e. it's not enough to just say "she's Bob Carr's wife", significant coverage must be demonstrated (which I believe is the case here). Jenks24 (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Street King (Energy Shot)[edit]

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

No cites from reliable sources means notability is not established. Zad68 (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to 50 Cent#Other ventures. Having done a cursory search on Google and Google News, I'm finding reliable sources, but they all mention it in connection with 50 Cent as part of the food drive. Seems like a noble cause to me. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:52, 8 March 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) 00:07, 14 March 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 07:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Arguments to the effect that 200-year-old churches are automatically notable are ungrounded in our policy and practice. Sandstein 17:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St. George's Forane Church[edit]

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

Non-notable church. No sources found that support notability for this particular church. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 14:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to longer article for the same church at St. George's Church, Edappally. Notable by virtue of age and size. – Fayenatic L (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you say it's the same church? They seem to be in different locations. St Anselm (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

oops, I was fooled by the external link for the wrong church. Kudos to Chiswick Chap for sorting that out. – Fayenatic L (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - churches like places are generally notable by reason of their existence, and any church in India dating back to 1813 is certainly worthy of note. I've tidied up the article a little and added some refs. Obviously it would be nice to add a bit more of its history but that shouldn't be a matter for AfD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To say that (local) churches are generally notable is a bold statement that certainly doesn't have community consensus on Wikipedia. References are important, especially with this claim about 1813. St Anselm (talk) 22:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And this picture doesn't look like a building from 1813. St Anselm (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's surely been messed about a lot since then. But I agree with you about the 1813; fortunately, the Archepathy link is a RS on that matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article does state that the old building is now used as a grave yard and the new building was build besides the old one. the image seems to be of new one. We dont have the statistics of number of Christians in the Kaipuzha town. However it seems majority of them are Christians. In that case if this is the only church in the town or biggest of them all, it becomes notable enough to stay. I will try and dig in info on this or ask others for help also. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 09:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Sources have been added but are all primary. IMHO the Archeparthy is sufficient backing for the 1813 claim. Unfortunately the "official website" is incomplete and appears to have been abandoned in April 2011. Trying an English news search, I only found a mention in an obituary; nevertheless, other sources could probably be found by people with access to media in local languages. – Fayenatic L (talk) 23:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with all of this. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not at all clear that the Archeparthy link is claiming the church was built in 1813. The (1813) in brackets probably just means that the parish was founded in that year. It can not be taken as support for the age of the building. -- 202.124.72.200 (talk) 13:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fayenatic has found and added a source showing the new church was built alongside the 1813 one, kudos to him, so that appears to answer the legitimate concern. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Unfortunately the sources are not the best quality, and another tourism site calling the 1813 building a "famous shrine" is on WP:BLACKLIST so I cannot even cite it. I think there is just enough evidence for verification and notability to keep the article, although the refimprove tag should remain. – Fayenatic L (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, Fayenatic, but that doesn't actually say that the "existing church" was the 1813 one (in some cases in India, the original church was wooden, replaced early on by a stone church). -- 202.124.73.63 (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I can't find any reliable sources, in spite of trying all the search terms I could think of. You would think that a church converted into a cemetery would get more coverage. Perhaps local editors can find something? -- 202.124.73.63 (talk) 01:20, 10 March 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) 00:08, 14 March 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 07:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no inherent notability for a religious building or a local congregation. The sources identified so far do not appear to satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. That the old church (possibly) dates back to 1813 does not grant it notability. If this were listed as a designated historic building, then it would be different. -- Whpq (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if the building was from 1813 (which I'm pretty sure it isn't), that still wouldn't imply notability. St Anselm (talk) 07:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Why arent people reading the full article? It says the building was built in 1813. Another building was built later on in 1983. The new building is the one that is shown on their website. It obviously wont look old, as it isnt. I dont see lack of picture as a reason for deletion. 713 families of a small village being members of the church is a fairly good number. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 08:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Can you explain how simply being built in 1813 meets any notability guideline? -- Whpq (talk) 11:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Al Hamawat Al Fatenat[edit]

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

Disputed PROD, Prod removed. Prod rationale: Nothing seems to link the sole reference to the article topic, unless the title is a translation. There is insufficient material to constitute an article here, and the film appears not to be notable. No notability is asserted in the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the page creator is, probably by accident, removing the AfD template from the page, a page which now has content, something that was absent at PROD and at the time I nominated the article for discussion here, but whose notability I still doubt. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A rough Google translation of the Arabic source does seem to relate the the plot summary outlined in the outline. This seems to be a notable Arabic film, though it might be difficult to find English sources. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:26, 13 March 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 March 14. Snotbot t • c » 00:38, 14 March 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 07:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation if notability can be established through reliable sources. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Niculiţă Secrieriu[edit]

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

One blurb on a commercial website does not make for significant coverage in reliable sources. As such sources are lacking, notability is not established and the article should be deleted. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After a lengthy search over Romanian-language sites, all I see is that NS's name is being pushed around by a couple of commercial sites (themselves utterly marginal) and a news aggregator. It falls on the article to present better sources for its statements, or even for a modicum of notability - but it does not cite even one. Until someone shows up with at least one or two third-party RS(es), this entry is going bye-bye. Dahn (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gongshow ^Talk 07:08, 14 March 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 07:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alun Buffry[edit]

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

Delete Notability not established; article also heavily edited into a fanzine by a user with the same name as the subject - puff since removed $Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!} (Whisper...)$ 11:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has a lot of publications, but discussions of his work by other people are needed to establish notability. No hits on Google News; no independent coverage in first 60 Google hits (just social networks, blogs, forums, writings by him) or on Google Books. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 13 March 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) 02:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spitfire (LeAnn Rimes album)[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL violation, as expressed in WP:HAMMER and WP:NALBUMS. There's no confirmed tracklist, nor is there a confirmed release data. Not enough material to create a useful stub, and not enough certainty for it to be a good idea, either. —Kww(talk) 02:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball delete. She's on Curb, so they'll just screw her over and release it like 15 years from now. Just like they did with her last two albums. Twitter is not enough of a source. Whoever made this article is obviously impatient. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hammer and Hammer. Too early to make an article without any pertinent information. "It should probably exist soon" isn't much of an encyclopedia entry. Angrysockhop ^{(talk to me)} 04:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep Oh seriously! There is no reason for this to be deleted. First off I'm not impatient. Ten you should know that better then anyone that I'm a damn good contribute to Wikipedia. Kww you need to back off me and third how is this any different then back when Speak Now: World Tour Live first began. That's why they get future project status on the talk page. No one put Speak Now: World Tour Live up for deletion after it was started & why? Because it was Taylor Swift who's very popular at the moment and WE as editors should make no acceptions or differences just cause of the subject. We are suppose to note this information. But no it's always pick and chose with Wikipedia it's no wonder this site's gonna eventually get shut down. Shoot my significant other's mother was telling me that at school they are not allowed to use Wikipedia and this is why! People just post whatever and do whatever they want regardless of anything and it's no wonder this online encyclopedia is not considered a good source. So do what you want but deleting this only proves what my significant other's mother is saying. But it should be kept. Swifty*^talk _contribs 15:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note This user has now been blocked and has retired from Wikipedia JayJay^{Talk to me} 01:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's just been blocked, not banned.—Kww(talk) 02:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What a shocker, another editor run off the project.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't ben run off the project. :-p Swifty*^talk _contribs 19:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am music publicist for Darrell Brown who is the producer and songwriting partner for LeAnn. I can assure you everything that is currently on the page is accurate. I have the complete track listing available to me but have not been given permission to post it. I will continue to update this wiki entry every week over the next two months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophiasdad (talk • contribs) 16:00, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not impersonate people on Wikipedia JayJay^{Talk to me} 17:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's clearly not.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 02:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean JayJay^{Talk to me} 14:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete distant future album with lack of info verifiable by reliable sources so far. Things like this are the whole reason WP:CRYSTAL exists. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TPH and Starblind. No track list, album artwork or release date = too soon for an article. Everything on this page is speculation. Eric444 (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If its deleted, what's the most likely date it can be recreated? One month? Two? I'll just copy for my blog and monetize it in the meantime.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, with leave to recreate when release date and track listing are confirmed independently. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guide to Better Living[edit]

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

No references or indication of notability. JayJay^{Talk to me} 01:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since album was nominated for an ARIA award and is on a notable label. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep added refs and nomination in the ARIA Music Awards of 1998. Angrysockhop ^{(talk to me)} 05:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep this is a notable album - which charted on the Australian album charts and resulted in an ARIA nomination. Dan arndt (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep who's stupid idea was it to delete this album!. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.148.117.105 (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind me interjecting- an !vote is only as meaningful as the argument backing it up. You never explained why you felt the article in question should be kept, so your !vote holds no weight. Calling the nominator "stupid" or attacking him on his talk page does nothing to further your point. Also, in case you are confused about assuming good faith let me assure you that, for better or worse, User:JayJay's actions were almost certainly done with the best interest of Wikipedia in mind. Angrysockhop ^{(talk to me)} 14:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ARIA charting, award nom & certification. Refs now supplied.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted above, this album reached a national chart, was certified double platinum, and received an ARIA Awards nomination. These suggest notability, and additional coverage exists from sources such as Billboard [13]. Gongshow ^Talk 05:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a charting album by a notable band. I would suggest to the nominator that perhaps they should do some research before nominating articles like this, as even a cursory Google search clearly indicates this album's notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. As above, clearly notable. Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Easy (Grinspoon album)[edit]

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

No sources or indication of notability. JayJay^{Talk to me} 01:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Same as the other one you nominated. Released on a notable label, nominated for an ARIA award. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep this album charted on the Australian national album charts & therefore is clearly notable. Dan arndt (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On national chart and platinum certification per refs supplied by Dan.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above; appears notable as a top five album on a national chart, certified platinum, and nominated for two ARIA Awards. Gongshow ^Talk 06:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Original reason for nomination addressed by others, sources show it is clearly notable. - Arjayay (talk) 10:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Clearly notable. Doctorhawkes (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huron Police Department (South Dakota)[edit]

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

The police department of a town of 12,600 might not satisfy WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC) Edison (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's true, it might not. Then again, it might. Is that a rationale for deletion? Has the nominator made a good faith effort to search for sources? Is there some reason why this page SHOULD be deleted? Failing a proper deletion rationale, I would advise a speedy close here. Carrite (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Burden of proof is on you just as much. I know how you roll — you think everything should be kept, and you always assume bad faith in the nominators' searches for sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suppose I should have explicitly said that I observed WP:BEFORE. A search of Google News and its archive, and Google books did not show sources to satisfy WP:ORG. All editors are welcome to point out here refs they can find which would satisfy WP:ORG.Edison (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, coverage is limited to routine mentions in local newspapers and biographies of police officers. Possibly merge to Huron, South Dakota but I don't see a great deal of useful content. Hut 8.5 17:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless a county sheriff's or police department is notable for its size and large jursidiction, we have deleted most small-time departments. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genesee County, New York Sheriff's Office for a counter-example. Bearian (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Despite a vigorous defense of the article by its author and one other editor, no one else is convinced of the band's notability. The sources provided were either not from reliable sources, or did not represent significant coverage of the band. Additionally, it was not demonstrated that the band fulfills any of the criteria at WP:NMUSIC. The article itself is a classic case of refbombing, complete with multiple facebook and youtube entries, and using the same sources multiple times to inflate the references section. If the band takes it to the next level (perhaps releasing an album on a notable label) and gets some significant coverage in reliable sources, then this article can be re-created. —SW— ^confabulate 20:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two Dollar Grey[edit]

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

Unsigned band with one self-published EP, a few reviews in non-reliable sources (blogs/webzines), doesn't appear to be notable - and only one editor involved (potential COI)? Fosse8 (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two Dollar Grey has over 5 independent references, which include Just a Show starring Keith King, Hard Rock Radio Live, Condemned Entertainment (who has worked with several national artists) and No Cover Phoenix Magazine. Additionally, per the redirect for discussion on November 1, 2011, the band has been a "featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network". The interviews with Keith King and Hard Rock Radio Live are sufficient for notability. Thanks, Phoenix!--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The editor above is the only meaningful contributor to the article in question, and has also edited the Just a Show article (itself tagged for notability) to insert information about Two Dollar Grey. Hence the suspicion of COI. To Jax 0677, I'd comment that: (a) That was something you said, not the outcome of the RFD. (b) That RFD wasn't a discussion regarding the notability of the band. This is, and I contend the "sources" provided don't cut it as far as WP:N is concerned. Google brings up nothing but promotional material and a couple of non-notable webzines. But it'd be good to hear some other thoughts. Fosse8 (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment De-orpaning articles is encouraged by Wikipedia. While I edited Just a Show, I had nothing to do with creating the interviews with "Just a Show" nor "Hard Rock Radio Live". These interviews were broadcast nationally and on the internet, and the band is not unsigned. Their affiliation with Liquid Metal Records has been affirmed by Prescott eNews, and the band had an interview earlier this year with Maximum Ink Music Magazine of Madison, WI.

Lastly, I strongly encourgage more editors to get involved in editing this article.--Jax 0677 (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're being disingenuous. It's not enough that a source, somewhere, happens to mention a thing you use in the article. Adding new references would be helpful if they meet the GNG and the stipulations of WP:N and WP:MUSIC (reliable third party sources giving non-trivial coverage - i.e. not some non-notable webzines, local fanzines etc, or brief interviews with the band themselves - see WP: PRIMARY). I note the one-line reference in a local news sports report being rather spuriously used to verify that the band is indeed "signed" to "Liquid Metal Records". A completely unsuitable source, but on further investigation, this band are, of course, the only band "signed" to the non-notable label, which has no website and no independent coverage, and has released one record in its two years of existence (http://www.emusic.com/listen/#/albums/label/-/1400811753/all/) ... it's clearly a self-published release. I echo the call for other editors to get involved, but from a COI point of view, it would be good if for the purposes of this AfD you'd kindly declare whether or not you have any connection with this band. Fosse8 (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have already stated my case for notability, and shall comply with the decision of the greater Wikipedia community. Like many editors of other music groups, I am a fan of the band and I have purchased their album. Other than this, I have no connection with the band.

I would also like to point out that there is little to no contest to Hard Rock Radio Live, who has interviewed Yngwie Malmsteen, The Sammus Theory and Black Label Society among other notable artists. The Hard Rock Radio Live interview with Two Dollar Grey (like the Just a Show interview) was several minutes long, and spoke at length about the band, which satisfies bullet point 12 of WP:MUSIC.

After I personally created a redirect from "Two Dollar Grey" to Come Undone (Duran Duran song), it was recommended that I create an article entitled "Two Dollar Grey", which I gladly did. This decision was accepted by the community, and I am surprised that this is being brought to AfD months after the fact as opposed to immediately. I will usually start a small article with enough information to present notability to assess such notability before I expand on it. After spending a lot of time on the article, it is this kind of thing that discourages people from writing for Wikipedia. My $0.02.--Jax 0677 (talk) 13:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody "owns" Wikipedia articles, regardless of how much time they spent writing them; there's no need to get defensive. I don't know why the original RfD debate wasn't followed up with a proper discussion of the band's notability, but I'm calling for it now. (I found the article because I was looking for Niue and accidentally made a typo ("Nieu"), which for some reason redirected to a really long, detailed, poorly-sourced NPOV article about some unsigned band. From the content of the article, and from the references provided, it looked like an AfD candidate on various grounds, clearly written either by someone connected with the group (hence the COI question), or a really committed fan. The quality of the sources seems - to me - to be nowhere near as strong as you keep asserting. But that's just my opinion.)

I've got no axe to grind. I don't know anything about the band, they might be great, I'm sure they're nice people etc etc, but the as yet unanswered question is: are they notable enough, now, for an article? I think "no", but I know nothing about this scene. If some other editors look at this AfD and the consensus is "yes", then great - that means we're building a better encyclopedia. Plenty of very notable things have been through deletion nominations because the article didn't really do them justice as to why they deserved it; off the top of my head, check out the histories for Twitter, or Levi Stubbs.

So, is anyone else going to comment on this thing, or what? Fosse8 (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To your points:

1. I agree that no one owns any Wikipedia article. I was simply making a statement about why some editors choose to stop editing Wikipedia.

2. "Nieu" is a plausible typo of "Nhieu", the family name of the backup vocalist on the song "Come Undone" by Two Dollar Grey.

3. The article is written by a committed fan. ESTK was likely also initially written by a committed fan.

4. Assuming that the sources are not reliable, the band has still had a "substantial broadcast segment across a national radio [network]" (and on a side note, has also played at the 2011 Fiesta Bowl Block Party and a 2012 Arizona Outlaws halftime show). The radio broadcast likely satisfies bullet point 12 of WP:MUSIC.

Again, I will let the AfD run its course.--Jax 0677 (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This band appears to me to be on the verge of achieving notability, but they're not there yet. Most of the references are not to reliable sources, so they don't satisfy WP:GNG. I don't think WP:MUSIC point 12 is being correctly applied, although it's always been part of WP:MUSIC that I've least understood. If the article is deleted, I hope the content can be saved should the band achieve greater fame in due course. Bondegezou (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While anyone can post an audio/video clip on the internet, Just a Show appears to be a substantive and legitimate operation, as iTunes has 55 copyrighted episodes of the show available for streaming. Hard Rock Radio Live has streaming audio broadcast which includes interviews with several notable artists. Despite claims that WP:MUSIC Point 12 is not satisfied, no one has testified as to WHY. There likely are many smaller, lesser known bands with articles on Wikipedia (The Sammus Theory being one of them) who meet only a small number of WP:MUSIC requirements. I feel that these two radio interviews do separate Two Dollar Grey from ordinary garage bands. Thanks.--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC point 12 refers to "a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network". "Just a Show" is a show that is broadcast by a number of different stations across the US, but that doesn't make it a "national radio or TV network". Ditto "Hard Rock Radio Live". At least that's how I interpret WP:MUSIC. They probably count as reliable sources with respect to the basic WP:GNG criterion, which would seem to be the article's strongest claim to notability, but I don't think they satisfy the intent of WP:MUSIC #12.

That less notable bands have articles is a reason for those articles to be deleted, not for this one to be kept. I suggest you start an WP:AFD for The Sammus Theory. Bondegezou (talk) 11:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* NB: I see Jax0677 created that article too, and is its only substantial contributor. I see it was prodded several months ago and Jax0677 removed it, adding a load of justification (like the stuff below) to the talk page. A strong AfD candidate, depending on what the community thinks of this one. Fosse8 (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The clips from Just a Show and Hard Rock Radio Live (HRRL) are posted on the internet for the whole United States (and the world) to see. The fact that HRRL is an internet radio station available to people all over the country makes it an national radio network (again, while anyone can post an audio/video clip on the internet, HRRL has continuous streaming audio broadcast which includes interviews with several notable artists). If HRRL counts as a reliable source, then combined with their continuous streaming audio broadcast, their interview with Two Dollar Grey counts as "a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network", which satisfies WP:MUSIC #12.

There is no objection to The Sammus Theory (TST) being in rotation on MTV2 in 2008, and that they have been featured on The Big Rock Show, so it is for these reasons that TST was kept as an article. Additionally, TST won Rockstar Uproar Festival Jaegermeister Battle of the Bands two years running. If Two Dollar Grey meets one of the twelve requirements, then it meets WP:N.

Lastly, going by this same standard, if Maximum Ink Magazine wrote about Two Dollar Grey, and Roadrunner Records has acknowledged Maximum Ink Magazine as being a legitimate organization that interviewed Black Stone Cherry, then the Maximum Ink Magazine reference also qualifies as a reliable source. Thanks :) --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does anyone else have any input, other than the person who created the article and has been its sole contributor (other than bots or minor corrective edits)? There's clearly a difference of opinion as to the quality of the sources offered and whether WP:MUSIC is satisfied; not wanting to stifle debate, but I feel Jax0677's position has been made as clear as it's going to get, and it would be good to hear some more opinions. Fosse8 (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I couldn't agree with you more about getting input from others, so that this process doesn't drag out indefinitely.--Jax 0677 (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation later if and when they meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. This appears to be an up and ciming band, but hasn't acheived the coverage needed to estblish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whpq, do you have a policy based reason for your Delete vote?--Jax 0677 (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Yes - I do have a policy based reason. As stated above "hasn't acheived the coverage needed to estblish notability". To be more verbose about it... There needs to be significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. The sourcing in the article falls well short with respect to being either a reliable source, being independent, or being significant coverage. As such, it fails to meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Your point is well taken, however, the article still meets WP:MUSIC Point 12 in the strict sense of the rule.--Jax 0677 (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I disagree. They have not been featured in national broadcast media as clips being distributed on the Internet does not qualify as broadcast media. -- Whpq (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply In addition to being a "[clip distributed] on the Internet", this interview was streamed live nationally during an internet radio broadcast. "Broadcast" is defined by Wiktionary as "transmission of a radio or television programme aired to be received by anyone with a receiver".--Jax 0677 (talk) 19:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Feel free to fine dice the semantics as much as you wish, internet radio is not a broadcast medium that I would count towards establishing notability for point 12 of the music notability criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 19:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply You are entitled to your own opinion, but I would like to point out that not just anybody can get an interview on internet radio. Internet radio has taken substantial market share in the world of broadcast, just like television did to newspaper. Wiktionary defines radio as "The continuous broadcasting of sound recordings via the Internet in the style of traditional radio".--Jax 0677 (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being somewhat new and inexperienced to Wikipedia, last year, I created a redirect from 2$G to the song "Come Undone" by Duran Duran. After having done so, I was specifically advised to create an article about the band, and I did what they asked of me. A few individuals have made constructive edits to the article since that time.

Just a Show may not be a national radio show, the references given may be in question and MIGHT not be of a sufficient number nor breadth in and of themselves to create a Wikipedia article. However, it is almost conclusive that by definition, 2$G has been the "featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio [network]" (on HRRL). In the interview, Nate Gullickson spoke at length about the band.

While there are 2-3 "[Delete]" votes and one "Keep" vote, this is to be a discussion based on policy guidlines. I used the guidelines shown at WP:MUSIC in order to decide whether or not I should create an article about the band. If we are to disregard item 12 of this policy, then users will likely not have a good handle about which topics they should write. While I understand the need to "weed the garden", in the bigger scheme of things, deleting articles like this that (more than likely) follow policy may discourage people from editing and slow the growth of Wikipedia, the latter of which (being the growth of Wikipedia) is a goal set forth by the Wikimedia foundation.--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Point 12 of the music notability has not been disregarded as evidenced by the discussion of that point above. There is simply disagreement on the interpretation and application. -- Whpq (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Your comments state that "internet radio is not a broadcast medium that I would count towards establishing notability for point 12 of the music notability criteria" and that "clips being distributed on the Internet does not qualify as broadcast media". These statements are both your opinion (while my comments are also only my opinion, as everything is a point of contention).

1. Nate Gullickson of Two Dollar Grey was the featured subject of the broadcast (the only person that Cynthia Paulson of HRRL talked to during the interview)

2. The interview lasted a substantial amount of time (in my opinion)

3. The interview involved broadcast ("transmission of a radio or television programme aired to be received by anyone with a receiver")

4. The interview was available nationally via an organization that performs "continuous broadcasting of sound recordings via the Internet in the style of traditional radio" to the entire United States.

Based on an explicit interpretation (or even a reasonable interpretation) of WP:MUSIC Point 12, there is little room for debate, given that some of the definitions of the words come from Wiktionary. Negating Point 12 would likely require a loose interpretation of the rule.

If these four points can not be legitimately negated, then the result of this AfD should likely be No Consensus. Thank you :)--Jax 0677 (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your second-to-last paragraph is correct - there is indeed little room for debate based on WP:MUSIC. However, your conclusion is wrong. To quote from the guideline itself: ...Meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion. In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability.

What we have here is a very long article about a band who, on the basis of the article - however excellent they are - are not notable. Right now, there is nothing, nothing, to suggest this band is any more notable than any other random selection from dozens of unsigned rock bands in the Phoenix area. Hence the AfD: if there aren't better sources, the band aren't notable enough. Some of the extra sources you've mustered are of very poor quality, and getting engaged in semantic hair-splitting over the widest possible interpretation of the words "national radio or TV network" to prove whether such and such a source could technically be said to meet the letter of one subheading of one notability guideline is unhelpful. I'd agree with every other person here that you're working to a very strange interpretation of WP:MUSIC, but even leaving that aside, scraping a pass on Point 12 isn't enough here - start with the WP:GNG and ask yourself, in all honesty, leaving aside the fact you're a fan, is this band notable enough for Wikipedia? Never mind a longer and more detailed article than Kreator or Cannibal Corpse, I'm talking about whether they merit a two-line stub noting they exist? And I'd argue that by every possible applicable standard, right now, no, they don't. It's a shame, because obviously a lot of time went into the article, and it would make a good basis for a fan page, not to mention a Wikipedia article if they do something notable in the future. But they're clearly not there yet. Fosse8 (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Maximum Ink Magazine and PureGrainAudio.com address Two Dollar Grey directly in detail, are legitimate organizations acknowledged by Roadrunner Records and are not agents of Two Dollar Grey. PureGrainAudio.com has had interviews with Opeth, Airbourne and Soulfly. The HRRL interview actually took place and was on the HRRL internet site at the time of editing. Not every unsigned band has had a radio interview, so I would not say that "there is [nothing] to suggest this band is any more notable than any other random selection from dozens of unsigned rock bands in the Phoenix area". Everything is a point of contention, so it is up to the Wikipedia community to decide now.--Jax 0677 (talk) 13:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. A Google search produces several reviews and interviews (or what I consider significant coverage) by several sources. The sources, unless there's some sort of mass conspiracy going on here, the likes of which I've never seen in my several years on Wikipedia, are independent of the subject of this article. Lastly, there is no reason to believe that the sources are not reliable. Fosse8, you're simply incorrect that there's "nothing" to suggest the band is notable. Your opinion seems to be that the sources presented are either not notable (which doesn't matter, whatsoever) or not reliable to which you have provided no evidence. The reviews and interviews are certainly more than "a two-line stub noting they exist". I think anyone would be hard pressed to claim that this and this article are less than "significant coverage". OlYeller21^Talktome 17:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The Maximum ink and Puregrainaudio articles are some coverage, minor in my opinion. But everything else I've been able to find is not what I would classify as a reliable source. Is there some specific coverage you found in the search results that convinces you? -- Whpq (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  The two I pointed out convince me. I don't see a reason to look past that. Do you see a reason to go past simply satisfying WP:GNG? Do you have any reason to consider them unreliable? I take that charge very seriously. To me, I consider it an assumption that a source may lie for some reason. In any case, Wikipedia or otherwise, I take that charge very seriously and the burden of proof lies with the accuser. I would not consider the coverage from the two websites you mentioned to be "considerable coverage".
  
  They could easily be compared to any old blog but they aren't that. Hard-rock-reviews.com has interviewed several bands considered notable by Wikipedia's standards. That's no small feat, in my opinion. 40ozrobot.com has several writers and some with Masters degrees. While that doesn't imply reliability, I don't see any reason to question its reliability. I haven't read through all the back and forth here but is there some reason that this Maximum Ink article isn't being used to establish notability? OlYeller21^Talktome 21:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Calm down. Your assertion seems to be that any source counts as reliable, and any suggestion that a source might not cut it as per WP:RS is an insult - do I have that right? If so, I don't think your definition of a reliable source tallies with WP:RS and its stipulations on self-published sources, and as a result, I'd dispute that the GNG is satisfied. But that's the (two) dollar question, I suppose. My point, as it's been throughout this whole AfD, is that the article doesn't assert why the subject is notable. The only sources provided look - to me - like a bunch of local blogs, small-scale review sites, Internet radio shows (none of which seems to be notable, as you've said - I know this isn't necessarily a criterion for establishing a reliable source, though I beg to differ that it "doesn't matter whatsoever"), who've reviewed the self-published CD this unsigned band sent them, or who've interviewed a local band. To me, it seems they'd be in a grey area (no pun intended) per WP:RS at best. But I don't know this field. I'm happy to defer to those with better knowledge. If the sources provided are considered to be reliable (per WP:RS, not the dictionary definition you seem to be using), then there's no issue - like I said, I've no axe to grind, and I wish this band well in their endeavours. But every attempt to find better sources so far has instead ended up with an outspoken defence as to why the existing source could just about cut the mustard. "National radio broadcast" becomes "streamed on the Internet". "Coverage in the Prescott News" becomes "a one-line mention in a 4000-line sports report." For Maximum Ink and 40oz Robot, neither of which I've ever heard of - not to say they're unreliable, just that I've personally never heard of them, they might be hugely well respected publications in this field - the goalposts get moved again: "these guys are reliable, because they've interviewed some notable bands (and indeed, some of them have masters degrees!)"... In good faith, I don't believe the GNG is satisfied here, hence the AfD. Fosse8 (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- I am and was perfectly calm. No, it is not correct. Any emotional response that you've read into my text is your own interpretation. I'm simply implying that calling a source unreliable, in my opinion, isn't something to do lightly. I skimmed the rest of your response as it's quite long for such a simple discussion. I see comments about national broadcasting to which I never even brought up. That you've personally never heard of anything is rather unimportant here on Wikipedia unless you're claiming to be an expert which you have specifically stated that you are not. The authors having Masters degrees from highly regarded institutions goes a long way, in my book. If you had such an education or know someone who does, you would know that their reputation is worth more than the piece of paper their degree is printed on. More evidence, in my opinion, that the source is reliable. They didn't review local bands. They reviewed bands, as I said, are notable on Wikipedia.

- I don't understand the goal of your response. Are you attempting to defend yourself or change my mind? Defending yourself isn't needed as you're entitled to your opinion; as am I. If you're attempting to change my mind or influence a patrolling admin, keeping your responses short, to the point, and refraining from using sarcasm such as "...", would be beneficial to everyone involved. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The WP:GNG is a strong guideline, but I do not view it as a simple exercise in reference counting, and the type and nature of the coverage needs to be considered. I do not view it as a simple exercise is reference counting where somehow, two articles is an automatic pass. I have read the Maximum Ink and Puregrainaudio articles along whith a bunch of others. I've found the overall ocverage to be short for what I consider is needed to meet the general notability guideline, and have also stated why. I'm always open to changing my mind, but none of the sourcing I've found or in the article have added up to be enough at this point. -- Whpq (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- That's a fair argument and I can't really argue with it. I think we simply draw the same line in different places. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply
1. Just a Show interviewed Nate Gullickson and Mike Ballinger, and stated in text that Nate is part of Two Dollar Grey (2$G) in Phoenix, Arizona. The show is well established, and has dozens of copyrighted episodes available for stream on iTunes. For this reason, I consider this a reliable source.

2. Hard Rock Radio Live (HRRL) interviewed Nate Gullickson of 2$G. The five items below leave little doubt that HRRL meets WP:MUSIC Point 12.

a. Nate Gullickson was the featured subject of the broadcast (the only person that Cynthia Paulson of HRRL talked to during the interview),

b. The interview lasted a substantial amount of time (in my opinion),

c. The interview involved broadcast ("transmission of a radio or television programme aired to be received by anyone with a receiver"),

d. The interview was available nationally via an organization that performs "continuous broadcasting of sound recordings via the Internet in the style of traditional radio" to the entire United States,

e. HRRL has also interviewed Yngwie Malmsteen, The Sammus Theory and Black Label Society among other notable artists.

3. Roadrunner Records is a subsidiary of Warner Music Group, which is a $3 billion corporation. They have acknowledged PureGrainAudio.com and Maximum Ink Magazine, which makes it likely that they are reliable sources and legitimate organizations.

4. PureGrainAudio.com, which is acknowledged in an article by Roadrunner Records states that:

a. 2$G is from Phoenix, Arizona,

b. They are a musical ensemble offering 'their own unique version of "groove rock"', and

c. "Saw You There" [SYT (containing "You Don't Belong" and "Did Me Right")] dropped in September of 2011.

I believe that this is enough for part of an article about a musical ensemble, combined with other sources that follow here.

5. Condemned Entertainment stated that 2$G came together in and mentioned their 'uniquely styled version of “Groove Rock”', and stated that SYT (containing "You Don't Belong" and "Did Me Right") was released in September of 2011. The site also mentions the names and roles of each of the band members, and shows samples of "Forgive Me" and "In Your Head" by the band, proving that the songs exist and showing what the songs sound like. The site contains samples of the songs on SYT, corroborated by Amazon.com.

6. Maximum Ink music magazine states that Two Dollar Grey is from Phoenix, AZ, and lists the names and roles of each of the band members.

7. The majority of organizations in the world are small businesses. 40oz. Robot wrote a lengthy article about "Saw You There" that states:

a. 2$G is a a five-piece band from Phoenix (both corroborated by Maximum Ink Magazine),

b. The article mentions the album SYT and all of its songs by name (corroborated by PureGrainAudio.com and Amazon.com) respectively, and

c. The article mentions all of the band members and their roles (both corroborated by Maximum Ink Magazine).

The remainder of this article is largely subjective, and can only be deduced from 2$G's copyrighted material. The names of the band members are also listed in the video for "You Don't Belong".

8. Steal the Spotlight mentions:

a. The album SYT and all of its songs by name (corroborated by PureGrainAudio.com and Amazon.com), and

b. All of the band members and their roles (both corroborated by Maximum Ink Magazine).

The remainder of this article is largely subjective, and can only be deduced from 2$G's copyrighted material.

9. No Cover Magazine, a national music magazine with 1.5 decades of experience listed on Dun & Bradstreet states that 2$G was formed in 2010.

Given these nine bullet points and the corroboration, I feel that Condemned Entertainment, Maximum Ink music magazine, PureGrainRadio.com, 40oz. Robot and Steal the Spotlight are all in depth and reliable sources. We have two articles that review the musical details of the entire album, whose factual details are corroborated by Amazon.com and others. We also have four well established organizations to corroborate all of the other articles.

I believe that the band is notable, because they have met WP:MUSIC Point 12, and because of the articles written about them by people independent of the band, and the fact that the information written in the articles is corroborated.

The point of requiring third party sources, is because if we could use first party sources, everyone would be notable. This band may not be as big as Michael Jackson, but I have stated my reasoning for notability per the WP guidelines. While I see much opinionated basis for deleting the article, I am seeing less and less factual basis as time goes on.--Jax 0677 (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, that last sentence simply isn't true, and I find the consistent assumption of bad faith a little insulting. Notability is not verifiability, I don't think anyone is arguing that the band doesn't exist. My point is that - according to the article - the band hasn't done anything, besides release a self-published EP. Per policy, not opinion, the article MUST assert and explain the subject's notability. I'd expect stuff about their live shows, their following, their sales, support gigs, label interest and so on - but there's nothing of substance there. Instead, lots of information about their EP and their video, but no reason why all this belongs in an encylopedia. The only thing being put forward to say this band is notable is that they've received coverage in various third-party sources, and so the key question - the only question - is whether that coverage meets the requirements of WP:RS, WP:MUSIC and the WP:GNG. That's what's being debated here. I nominated the article because I don't believe the sources hold up per those guidelines - that's as far as any opinion goes, for me and (as far as I can see) every other editor on the page. Two editors have agreed with me and two (including you) have disagreed. That's great, that's what this is all about, and if it helps clarify some points (does Internet radio really "count" for the purposes of WP:MUSIC? Do reviews and interviews of an unsigned band automatically confer notability regardless of the sources? If not, what's the threshold?), then it'll all have been worth it. Once again, for the avoidance of doubt, this is a good faith AfD and I have no interest in Two Dollar Grey. I've purposely not even listened to their music until this is over purely so as not to form a biased opinion one way or the other (because whether they're excellent or awful, it makes no difference to notability), though I'm certainly curious to hear it after all this! Fosse8 (talk) 10:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The article talks about how the band has been reviewed by several independent sources and how it has been interviewed by HRRL (there is little doubt about the latter). The two lengthy reviews are third party reviews. Having third party publications means that other people are interested in the band. The article shows a picture of Jessilina performing with Craig, which I took at a live show. I hesitate to put information about their live shows, their following, their sales and support gigs, because that (and tour dates, and names of bands they have opened for) tends to become promotional. There are many successful independent bands, Korn being one of them, and I don't think that label support is relevant here (or anywhere). I don't feel there needs to be this specific information that you suggest, and if it does, you will need to show me where it says that. Many bands out there have stubs as Wikipedia articles, and many never release any videos.

WP:RS keeps getting brought up, but I ask EXACTLY which part of WP:RS is not met? I have specified nine bullet points as to why the sources corroborate one another, are factually correct, and are quite well established. Everything mentioned is ultimately corroborated by well established sources (if I am wrong, let me know where). OlYeller21 and I have stated our positions on why WP:RS, WP:MUSIC and the WP:GNG are met.

Please explain EXACTLY why they are not met.--Jax 0677 (talk) 13:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You both may or may not have valid arguments but do you really expect anyone to read these enormous responses? This is one article about one band. We're not debating some incredibly complicated moral dilemma.

Ask yourself if you're actually changing anyone's mind by bringing up new arguments or simply repeating what you've already stated (several times) and expecting someone else to change their mind. OlYeller21^Talktome 19:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must echo OlYeller21 at this point. Rehashing the same arguments over and over again serves no useful purpose. From what I've observed in AFD, a huge wall of text between two editors slugging it out in a deletion discussion often seems to discourage other editors from bothering with entering the discussion. That's not helpful in coming to a consensus. -- Whpq (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, and apologise I haven't helped matters. I don't often propose articles for deletion and somehow felt compelled to keep replying, as if it was my duty or something. Is it too late/bad form to remove most of my tl;dr waffle? Fosse8 (talk) 10:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally poor form to remove text as it leaves a gap in the conversation. Best just leave it alone. -- Whpq (talk) 10:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the lengthy responses. I also felt compelled to keep replying to each individual point that was made. We are rapidly approaching two weeks now, so what's our verdict?--Jax 0677 (talk) 13:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator will review the discussion and determine the next step. Wikipedia:Deletion process provides good information in general about Wikipedia's deletion process. -- Whpq (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack coverage in independent reliable sources. Most sources, including the second linked by OlYeller21, are pieces "where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves" that are the exception for WP:BAND#1. I see no evidence that 40ozrobot are a reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Many other do not verify the text of the article and appear to be there just to make the band appear more notable than they are. I'm not seing the coverage in multiple sources needed. About #12 Hard Rock Radio Live are not a national radio network. A several minutes long interview is not being the featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment, A half hour piece where someone other than themselves are talking about would be. It also lack verifiability. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Although part of some of the articles that I mentioned are where the aritst talks about themselves, there are a part of those articles where the writers talk about the band. About 40ozrobot, "Many other do not verify the text of the article" and HRRL, please see my reply of 01:07, 27 March 2012. How is HRRL not a national radio network? With the limited amount of time that news stations have available, several minutes long is about as good as it gets any more.

About the numbered points in that reply.

1 The band talking about themselves

2 The band talking about themselves

3 One is just a listing. other is unrelated to 2$G and does not verify text (WP:BOMBARD)

4 Just a listing. appears to by text supplied to them [14]

5 The band talking about themselves, site is a Booking, Management and Touring company

6 The band talking about themselves (same as hard-rock -reviews

7 Not a reliable source

8 Not a reliable source

9 Just a listing

Your reasoning about what makes a reliable source is not policy based and is flawed

What's with the "and can only be deduced from 2$G's copyrighted material"

If you disagree about 40oz. Robot then taht leaves us with one good source, not enough.

About HRRL, they are not radio, duffbeerforme (talk) 09:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD has been outstanding for two weeks and a day now. Is this AfD going to be dispositioned soon (relist, judgment or otherwise)?--Jax 0677 (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Patience young grasshopper. An admin will make an appropriate decision when the time is ripe. -- Whpq (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added information to article requested by Fosse8 With the exception of "their sales" (which is not always published by private companies nor independent bands), I have added the information to the article requested by Fosse8, "live shows, their following, their sales, support gigs, label interest".--Jax 0677 (talk) 01:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

University of Houston Creative Writing Program[edit]

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

Contested Prod :But for a link to a ranking list an unsourced article on a Uni course, which fails the Wikipedia:College and university article guidelines for a stand alone article. Mt king ^(edits) 06:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we don't create articles for university courses. LibStar (talk) 04:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - generally, articles about individual programs have been deleted at AfD. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. joe decker ^{talk to me} 04:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Max Bernstein (musician)[edit]

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

First off, I should just say that I am the subject of this page and asked on Teahouse about this and the volunteers were quite helpful - the exchange is here. I believe this page should be deleted because I, the subject, do not meet the notability requirements. I am the touring guitarist for someone who very rightfully has their own page and was once in a band that has their own page (though to me that seems dubious as well). At any rate, I looked at the [guidelines for musicians] and feel that I meet none of them. Other hired touring musicians for famous singers on the whole do not have Wikipedia pages, and while it is an honor that some very big fans of the artist I play for take the time to add to this page, I do feel quite silly having one, especially one that basically consists of every piece of information publicly available about me. At any rate, I do understand that the goal of Wikimedia is to provide the world with more information, not less -- but nonetheless I do not meet the notability guidelines.

Guideline 1 comes the closest, as there have been articles about the group Max and the Marginalized in newspapers which are referenced on the page -- however those are not about me, they are about Max and the Marginalized. All the remaining guidelines are a resounding no -- I hope that the editors recognize this and that one day I accomplish more as a musician and meet the guidelines for real -- until then I'd just like to practice and keep playing. Thanks! Tacomailman (talk) 08:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although Bernstein doesn't meet the critera at WP:BAND, there's sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline. However, where notability is borderline, there's precedent for deleting BLP articles at the subject's request. If Tacomailman has reasons beyond basic notability for wanting the article removed (and can provide basic evidence via OTRS of his identity), I think we should respect his wishes. However, if this nomination is purely based on Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, the article should stay per GNG. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The coverage in reliable sources are either about The Actual or my folks who all have pages. Anyways, thank you for the OTRS link -- I can't figure out which one to use for identity verification though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tacomailman (talk • contribs) 18:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the Washington Post and AZCentral ones are definitely about Max Bernstein the person, rather than the band he was in at the time - certainly they have enough coverage of the man himself to get past GNG. That said, I'm not making a Keep argument here - the coverage is pretty borderline, so if you really want it gone I'm not going to argue. The email address for identity verification is info-en@wikimedia.org. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on grounds that subject is of marginal notability, subject has specifically requested deletion, and any important content can be distributed elsewhere. If kept however, the current draft is creepily written with too much personal detail too early in the article, that needs to be fixed. Let the man cash in with Kesha in the meantime.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made some quick fixes.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 03:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Right? Why did someone feel the need to write about the details of my birth? Anyway at what point is the discussion considered closed and I can delete this? Thanks Milowent. Tacomailman (talk) 04:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been "relisted" for another 7 days because there wasn't enough discussion above to reach a consensus conclusion. I am a pretty fervent "inclusionist" so I hope others will take my views into account here as supporting deletion. (As for why the detail in the article, its because someone was probably trying to show you were notable and was gathering up all the facts they could.)--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an argument could be made for inclusion, but it would be pretty borderline. There doesn't appear to be much to make the subject any more notable than any other touring musician. Harrias ^talk 16:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

K9 Cisco[edit]

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

not a WP:N product LES 953 (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Abbreviation not sourced to third-party sources. A412 (Talk • C) 23:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established by article. Doesn't appear to be notable enough to have been mentioned or linked to in any other Cisco articles. --Kvng (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. There is a rough consensus that sources necessary to support an article have not (yet) been found. I will userfy the article to User:Star Mississippi/Ataria for improvement and sourcing as StarM has time. Eluchil404 (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ataria[edit]

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

I am unable to locate any reliable source coverage to establish notability for this interpretation centre. The article had previously been A7 speedied due to having no notability claims. The current recreated version of the article makes the claim that it is "one of the most important place of the Vitoria-Gasteiz's Green Ring." I am unable to verify that claim in any reliable sources (and not clear it really is a notability claim in any case) and find no other notability claims in the article. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think it's probably notable as many museums are, but English language sources are an issue. Seems to be known as "Ataria interpretive center" in some sources especially with Vitoria being named a Green Capital for 2012 but I'm having trouble finding anything that's not from a tourist site. I wonder if it's a new structire and therefore not yet notable? I'll try to find more sources and rewrite, which it will need if it's to stay StarM 04:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note it's a partial copyvio, see here. Not sure if it's enough to warrant a speedy. StarM 04:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI won't get to this this week , can closing admin please userfy this for me if it closes as delete? I'll see what I can do with it StarM 01:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. While it may suffer from non-english sources, still sources need to be found. Its a close paraphrase of the official page at best and a copyvio at worst. Should be deleted without prejudice towards recreation should sufficient sources be found. RadioFan (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rami Ghandour[edit]

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

Non-notable person. This article seems to exist solely to promote Ghandour's "NRTCA" product and ForestWeb company. Google searches (once one removes references to a different Rami Ghandour who is CEO of an outfit called Metito) result in only press releases and minor coverage. No indications of any significant coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of the references are either press releases or other non-independent sources, barely mention him, or don't mention him at all. The article is heavily promotional in tone. The article has been created, recreated after an earlier deletion, and mainly edited by a group of single purpose accounts and single purpose IPs whose only purpose seems to be promotion of Forestweb and Industry Intelligence Inc, and this article is spam on a subject with no evidence of notability, either in the article or anywhere else. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Press releases and being quoted in some press articles is not sufficient indication of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy delete as promotional JamesBWatson (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Industry Intelligence Inc[edit]

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

Non-notable company, and overly promotional as well. Article appears to be part of an overall promotion campaign for all of Rami Ghandour's enterprises. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS -- all cited sources, and all sources that could be found, are either press releases by the company, or simple business directory listings. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. I think that there is enough participation here to determine that consensus hasn't changed from the previous AFD. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scotsmac[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I know that this article was nominated for deletion (by me, actually) a year and a half ago and survived (though by today's standards, it would've probably been NC instead). However, why I did exactly seems an anathema to me...though it was claimed references did exist, none were added. The article continues to consist primarily of weasel statements . I did do a search to satisfy BEFORE concerns...there aren't that many references to it in Google Books, and only a few in Google Scholar. Many of these appear to either be about a science project also named "SCOTSMAC", or are fleeting references to the potable that don't discuss it in detail. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 20:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As with the previous discussion, I'd point to the various references out there - a thin spread but nonetheless discernable (like Marmite perhaps). I've added a couple into the article tonight, including one newspaper article since the previous AfD. (I've also flagged some extremely dubious content added by a new editor today.) Is it enough to establish notability though? As with the previous AfD, I haven't put a keep/delete as I really can't make up my mind. AllyD (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Whisky Paradise most likely isn't reliable Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 21:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was the one that was already there. It does look accurate but short of WP:RS. AllyD (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "dubious content". Ben Mac Dui 08:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not sure about this one. My instinct says probably keep, but I'm reluctant to give it the !vote endorsement without better reliable sources. --Deskford (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Third-party coverage in GNews isn't great, but if it's sold extensively in a couple of discount chains that just about puts it over the bar (although I'll bow to the expertise of Netto and Lidl experts here). The main issue was the dubious puffery, but that's now been removed. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 16 March 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) 00:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, without any enthusiasm, largely per previous discussion. Sources indicate that like Scotland's pride, Buckfast Tonic Wine, this inexpensive fortified wine has attracted attention from the public-health nithings[15]. The Books references that refer to this product rather than the SCOTSMAC research project are indeed several incidental mentions. (E.g. [16][17][18]) These incidental references show that Scotsmac is something of a culturally significant touchstone. To this, add the fact that non-Scots who come across this name are unlikely to know what it's talking about, and as such may inspire genuine curiosity. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of IBJJF Nogi World Brazilian Jiu Jitsu Champions[edit]

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

This is just a table, which does not warrant a stand alone article. Most likely this table can be merged with some other Brazilian Jiu Jitsu article, but I don't know which one. But a single table is not an article. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OKay I have created and article on the Nogi world championships and put the table on there so you can delete this.

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 21. Snotbot t • c » 00:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request speedy close as delete as original author has started the article World Nogi Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Championship, which includes this table. So this article/table is now superfluous. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This table is already included in World Nogi Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Championship. Astudent0 (talk) 20:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. There is at the very least no consensus that the topic is inappropriate for inclusion, so in accordance with our deletion policy, it is kept by default. I would like to remind contributors that disliking a topic is not a sufficient reason for deletion (WP:ILIKEIT), and that any deficiencies can be corrected through editing. Sandstein 17:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noynoying[edit]

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

This so-called Internet meme has been around for approximate 4 days. There's nothing to indicate it will be anything more than a one-time event. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 14:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Very annoying and out of the normal daily routine of today. ... discospinster _talk 11:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)~~ The preceding comment was added by 112.198.161.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and not discospinster (talk · contribs) -- Whpq (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this even an article? Better place for this on UrbanDictionary or KnowYourMeme. This should have been deleted yesterday. Ntlespino (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help,_my_article_got_nominated_for_deletion!#Some_articles_will_get_deleted_anyway "Some articles just don't belong in an encyclopedia, whether a paper-based one or an online one like Wikipedia. A local slang term which is not very notable from a worldwide view (or which is not covered in popular culture) is a candidate for the Urban Dictionary, not for Wikipedia." Ntlespino (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some of the references in the article don't mention "Noynoying", and those that do all date from within the last few days. The same applies to what I have been able to find about "Noynoying" from a Google search. Maybe this will become notable, and if so we can have an article on it, but so far it looks like a mildly amusing publicity gimmick which, for all we know, may not be going to last. It may or may not be going to be notable, but WP:NOTCRYSTAL says we don't have an article on it yet. 79.123.75.171 (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I think an article for Noynoying will be added in the future (it will last in the minds of the people), I don't think it's notable enough yet for an article. It's not even a meme yet. How does a term become a meme? Three needed factors: (1) spread - it should be viral and spread all over, (2) mutation - it should become something else other than the original (the original is a word, so it should be added in pictures, video, etc), and (3) crossover: should cross over with other memes. A good example is the Chris Lao meme. In 24 hours, it had enough spread, mutation (there were parodies, and "Chris Lao" mutated to "I should have been informed"), and crossover to be considered a meme. Noynoying, not yet. Mvching (talk) 08:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of a single article, I think we should add it to the entry for Pres. Aquino. Mvching (talk) 08:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional keep. Meets WP:V, but needs to clean up its sources. Noynoying was recently featured on Wall Street Journal (link) and expect more mainstream media to cover this subject. The article should also not refer to "Noynoying" as a meme but rather as a neologism, like Tebowing. There should also be a section on Malacanang's reaction (both by President Aquino and his spokespersons) about the matter. Starczamora (talk) 10:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noynoying is more than just a meme. I support the call above to focus on neologism and other political terms such as Salamandering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.54.39 (talk) 11:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hey, maybe in the future, but this just appears to be the latest internet blip. -- Whpq (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I also found this cached article from Manila Standard Today dated October 8, 2011, which could be the first documented use of the term "Noynoying" during the height of Typhoons Pedring and Quiel.

To quote: "The opposition called the government’s calamity response “insensitive, indifferent, and slow.” Palace ally House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. urged the President to visit the typhoon victims “to boost their morale.” The Internet was abuzz with a newly-coined word, “noynoying.” The word translates to “procrastinating,” members of a UP Diliman alumni social networking group say."

So we cannot quickly dismiss the article as a mere Internet blip, as it has been bubbling under the pop culture radar until recently. Starczamora (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- That's wasn't a cached from the original news article. You just wrote it up a few days ago. There was never a mention of the word in the original article. You invented it just a few days ago. You think you can fool the editors here??? 112.198.78.248 (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Carlo Linga[reply]
  - Please assume good faith when you comment on Wikipedia. Starczamora (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- O C'mon. Be truthful, you know that you just invented it last week and you want it to be in Wikipedia already? My children uses this extensively and I wouldn't want them to read this kind of crap. Please don't pollute Wikipedia, for our children's sake! Put it on your own personal blog, but not in Wikipedia, PLEASE!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.78.248 (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is your burden to prove that I invented the word. Starczamora (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Not a meme, but something else. Mvching (talk) 05:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just in the number of days that an entry should be based for deletion or not, but for the how widespread an impact it has to how-large a number of people have been exposed to it that should actually determine its significance and relevance. Noynoying -web searches in Microsoft Bing has already 4,780 results while Google has it at 206,000..., strikingly relevant for just a small amount of time. Not to mention the number of uses it already has in Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn and other social networks. How relevant it is could also be shown by the number of mainstream media already aware of it, its meanings, and its uses... For ex.: From Wall Street Journal: http://blogs.wsj.com/searealtime/2012/03/20/noynoying-poses-challenge-to-philippine-leader/ From GulfNews.com: http://gulfnews.com/news/world/philippines/philippines-aquino-says-no-to-noynoying-1.997323 From ABS-CBN: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/-depth/03/20/12/what-you-need-know-about-noynoying From GMA7 News video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyq4FgDPr8w and many, many more... ---these are media giants in their own respect, cementing the idea of how widespread the exposition and amount of usage it is to a lot of people of a nation's number to say the least. Also, It just doesn't reside w/in the Internet, as it is now used on the streets, even farmers know its meanings here: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/03/19/12/luisita-farmers-go-noynoying -thus, "Noynoying" have a place here as a Wikipedia entry, for further reference within a more elaborate information channel such as Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyf1204 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article probably is news worthy but not Wikipedia worthy. The word was just invented by about a dozen people just last week. The media picking it up doesn't warrant it a place in Wikipedia

Provisional keep. As per the same rationale as Starczamora. With emphasis on the fact that unsourced materials must be removed ASAP. Otherwise, I shift my vote to Delete. Let's keep this up to NPOV standards, please. - Alternativity (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- I am currently in the process of creating a NPOV version of the article in my sandbox. Wish me luck. Starczamora (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it became like the jejemon phenomenon, only bigger. And also someone nominate this for DYK April Fools Day edition. –H T D 01:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, jejemon was different. It's been probably over a year before that term was accepted. There's even some movies made with the same theme attesting to the word's popularity. But Noynoying was a week old and doesn't deserve to be in Wikipedia. Let's wait for at least 6 months before we put it in here.

It should be deleted. Noynoying is a term coined only by an activist(s) in Manila, the OVERALL population of the Philippines in which I am part of is not in any way going to agree that the president was doing nothing and thus the need to create a term based on his alias=Noynoy is needed, it is quite unfair. Leaving this article in wikipedia will make this public wikipedia a home for almost any editors on the planet to create an article just to support their unproven allegations. Those activists are omnipresent. Their works are only to critique the present leader, regardless of who they are, regardless of time, they are there in the streets to protest. The president of any state cannot control oil prices for common sense reasons, yet the activists wants the public to believe that the president has this ultimate power to lower prices not only of oil but of basic commodities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.131.100.52 (talk) 06:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This entry should be deleted as it does not deserve to be in Wikipedia. The entry does not enlighten but only serve to ruin Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. This term was merely coined by propagandists/activists/rallyists in an effort to discredit the current president and to tarnish his image. As such, the term and meaning are just the opinions of a minority. It is not even truthful. It is only malicious gossip. It is propaganda. It may have plenty of coverage now, but only because of concerted campaigns. It is likely just as the others have said, an internet blip. For it to be worthy of the space in Wikipedia, it has to at least be truthful, and must stand the test of time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notnot0128 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. But the articles cited by this source are as unreliable as any: They're mostly talking about people talking about this gimmick. That's not news to trust. Media covering this blip isn't a good standard to go by either--we must take in mind the editorial policies of Philippine news outlets. The leading media stations like to cover Twitter trending topics for news, for example. And this particular gimmick hasn't even trended, contrary to the claims of its supporters.

Speedy Delete. An article as cheap and unprofessional as this does not deserve to be in Wikipedia. Put this in UrbanDictionary instead. --PinoiBIGscientian (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to the last 3 comments after my keep vote: Those are not valid deletion rationales. The appropriate policies here are WP:NN, WP:GNG, WP:NOT (and its companion essay Verifiability, not truth). The motives or the characters of those who started this are irrelevant; the question is, is this notable? Is this verifiable? With that said, everything that is not sourced should be removed; if the article truly is notable, there should be enough reliable sources to go around. If it isn't, but there's consensus that it is notable enough, the question should be which article should this be merged to. Presidency of Benigno Aquino III? –H T D 13:11, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Inclusion criteria, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and WP:SOAPBOX. Specifically: "A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred)." The term itself was coined only a few days ago. Too soon to even judge if the term is notable (I've never even heard of it until now). No this is not at all like Jejemon. I am not fond of Noynoy, nor any of our presidents for that matter, but this should be treated as under the terms of WP:BLP. It's an attack page after all with a great deal of POV thrown in. We'd be unduly legitimizing it by having an article on it just a few days after it was coined by the perpetual activists in the NCR region. So, wait. If the term survives after, say, six months, then I have no objections to adding it. But right now, it stinks of propaganda.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 14:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. While I agree that the article started out as an attack page, my recent edits to the article made sure that it would not be so. Starczamora (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. This article DOES NOT deserve to be in Wikipedia. This kind of article should be in personal blog but not in Wikipedia. Please don't allow people to pollute Wikipedia with partisan and untruthful articles like this. My children uses this extensively and I wouldn't want them to read articles like this, which might distort their views on what is really happening in the country. 18:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Carlo Linga — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.78.248 (talk)

Provisional keep I may be living outside the Philippines, but I do follow the news back home, and it seems that the local media is making a big deal out of this "Noynoying" phenomenon. Add onto that international media coverage and I'm inclined to believe that this much more than just being a "meme". However, while I must agree with Obsidian Soul that we should allow the term to run its course to ascertain whether or not it stands the test of time, I am not inclined to believe that time ought to be the sole determinant of whether or not an article warrants including in Wikipedia. By the looks of it, it does pass the muster of the general notability guideline, regardless of who invented the term or not. If there's a problem with association, we ought to clean it up rather than remove it hook, line and sinker: hence the provisional keep. (Also, on another note: I'm seeing an unusually high number of anonymous IPs who are behaving as if they're experienced Wikipedia editors. Please start assuming good faith and allow the AfD to run its course. Thanks.) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 21:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We can't just simply let this blip run its course--it's damaging to Wikipedia's credibility and capacity to sift through notable events, if that's allowed to happen. (On another note: The fascinating thing about Wikipedia is that its users are lent a voice. People who rely on Wikipedia have a right to be provided only the most credible, notable, and neutral information.)

What can readers get from this article? Some things are not appropriate in an encyclopedia. This is not your regular tabloid so please delete this article as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mafiaboy22 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because Wikipedia has content on something does not mean that it's a tabloid, and it does not mean that the article in question can't be rewritten in order to conform with the existing corpus of policy. Do understand that Wikipedia has a history of containing and maintaining "undesirable" content because the community believes that such content has an appropriate place on Wikipedia. As far as I'm concerned, I'm not convinced by those who are voting "Delete" on the grounds of it being an "invention" of the so-called militant protesters of imperial Manila, or on the grounds of being "inappropriate": there needs to be a much stronger basis for deletion than that, especially since we risk making norms out of AfDs which could possibly threaten the ability of Wikipedia to fully reflect a country's corpus of information, in this case being information on political happenings in the Phillippines. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 07:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I may be Filipino, but this does not deserve any place in Wikipedia despite the rants of certain anons. Issues have been raised about recentism and notability, and this runs afoul of them. --Eaglestorm (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, for now at least, I have to vote delete. There has been coverage about this article from websites (The Philippine Star has it on its front page), but since the term is only a neologism, I don't know if we can save this. Yes there has been reliable sources, but they have only been around for the last four or five days, too soon I guess. This neologism is pretty much doomed to be a fad, as I can't see people remembering this by late April. I can also endorse a redirect to Noynoy Aquino under a Criticism section as an alternative. If more coverage comes up within the next few weeks, then it can be the next Jejemon and be recreated, and even become a DYK in time for April Fool's Day, but for now, delete. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It should be a rule of thumb that if the deletion discussion of a subject on Wikipedia is the subject of news, then the subject is notable. If this subject is ephemeral it can be deleted later. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. But, again, the question is: Are Philippine news outlets as rigid in their editorial policies as they should be? The article you linked to is too much like the snake eating its own tail. An article about a discussion of a passing moniker borne of the minority's ire, an article which is then cited in the discussion and the article on the moniker being discussed. Something is inherently faulty in this kind of media coverage, and we'll make it worse if we let Wikipedia descend to these kinds of self-serving standards.

Propose we rephrase lede to "a protest gimmick in the form of a neologism", possible link to culture jamming

Comment I always thought that the article lede should read "a protest gimmick in the form of a neologism" rather than its present phrasing (simply "a neologism"). It's an actual incontrovertible (and I think reasonably neutral) fact, and think it would make the article clearer. That's one of the conditions of my Provisional Keep vote, I suppose. The present phrasing is not neutral because it gives the impression that the phrase came out and became popular out of thin air. It did NOT. I'm going to wp:be bold and make the edit now, please undo it if arguments here provide an objective reason for rejecting that phrasing. I am also linking "protest gimmick" to culture jamming, which may be a separate issue altogether. Folks might want to decide to undo THAT edit on a separate basis. Let's make this article adhere to wp:NPOV, please. Thank you. - Alternativity (talk) 04:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Possible This article is purposely made to create statement against the present leader of the country and is political in nature. It is not even popular to silent majority and therefore eligible for speedy deletion. Ric Padgett (talk) 08:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity should not be used as a basis for eligibility, for it would make A LOT of articles here ineligible as well. The issues here are WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS, which the article has extensively worked on. Besides, the "real" silent majority in the Philippines is the 60% of voters who did not choose Aquino to be their president in 2010, but I digress. Starczamora (talk) 08:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Local media websites as reliable sources I'd just like to note that the editors should exercise extreme caution in accepting news articles from local media websites in the Philippines as reliable source -- more often than not, they report as noteworthy anything Philippine-related that trended on twitter for a couple of hours, or reached a hundred thousand or so hits on youtube. Filipinos love being on the spotlight like that.

Right now there's even an article about how the discussion on this talk page supposedly shows that Wikipedia users are 'divided' over whether Noynoying should stay or not, complete with quotes from everyone else above this post. --112.203.73.230 (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While there are clearly national characteristics involved, relying on suppositions of what they might be is a thin reed. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:56, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my humble opinion I still see it as a name calling and not neutral in nature. Joefran4 (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Chink, Golliwog, Self-hating Jew and many other name-calling articles, all of which earned a place in Wikipedia.Starczamora (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You guys do really have to understand what WP:NPOV means -- it means the why the article deals with the subject should be neutral; not whether the subject per se is neutral. That's the crux of contention on many of the delete votes, aside from the recentism aspect which is a valid rationale. 112.204.187.181 (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the Talk:Noynoying page, I agree that the act itself is not neutral, and I agree that the act is propagandist in nature. If I may raise a point of order, however, the question is whether the article is neutral, or is, recognizing the effort to slowly improve it, in the process of being made neutral. The act and the article referring to the act are two different things. I think the argument Joefran4 is using is better discussed as an issue of the act's Notability, not the article's Neutrality. - Alternativity (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article "noynoying" phenomenon is still in the air. and still not reaching its saturation point. It is slowly becoming a household term and always used in public places (used in replacement for waiting,watching, resting, etc.). It is also used synonimously with "slacker". I guess this "noynoying" will remain for a longer period of time. So, keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timbre Rock (talk • contribs) 16:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC) — Timbre Rock (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. This kind of tone mirrors the article's non-neutrality, which simply cannot be modified no matter the edits. It's because the blip has no credible basis yet, no matter the editorialized sources people pull up. Goodness, even the pronunciation guide is suspect.

KEEP THIS ARTICLE! Reading these arguments for deletion of this article border on censorship, not not editing. Just because you don't like a term or its meaning has no bearing on whether it should be included in an encyclopedic library like Wikipedia. I just Googled noynoying and it returned 254,000+ items. To me, that warrants an entry here, regardless of whether you like the term or not. As a "culture-neutral" anthropologist, one of the things I've noticed about Wikipedia is a bias towards older generation, "Western", academic intellectual/social level cultural norms. It's very apparent here, where noynoying originated from a younger, Eastern, grass roots culture. It belongs here because it's what's emerging in the world and Wikipedia needs to reflect all points of view, not just Wikipedia's "elite" editorial contributors.

Regarding "recentism" (even that term and concept reflect the strong "academic" bias of Wikipedia), I believe the best interests of the worldwide public Wikipedia serves (vs. the interests of its editors) are to include emerging trends like this in Wikipedia, so Wikipedia isn't just a virtual replacement of stale hard copy encyclopedias that were always at least a year out of date. What's needed isn't to delete lots of articles up front; it's to have a more robust editorial process for keeping content fresh - a totally different point of view than keeping it within rigid academic guidelines. That process should be the one that archives (not deletes) articles that are no longer relevant. That way if emerging trends like noynoying don't continue, the article gets archived. Wake up to the possibilities of electronic media - it's about living in the NOW, not in the past! I know this entry will get flagged for deletion because it doesn't meet some rigid editorial guideline. I suggest one of the first places to get started on making Wikipedia more "fresh", unbiased, and relevant to today's world is your rigid editorial rules. They need to reflect multiple perspectives and catch up to what's emerging in the rest of the world. They are what have kept people like me from contributing to Wikipedia, financially and editorially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Falcons-dream (talk • contribs)

Keep subject is multiply, reliably sourced to reputable news organizations that are independent of the topic. Article meets WP:V and appears to have been improved since AfD was opened. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe this article must be deleted as it violates lots of WP: conduct, policies & etc... such as personal attack, civility, harassment, and libelous threat. The goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedic information source adhering to a neutral point of view. No Filipino in his/her right mind would believe that Noynoying has nothing to do with political propaganda thus it is not neutral. In fact, the word itself is derived from a political person's name which constitutes personal attack, incivility, and harassment. Therefore, such article should not be given a place in Wikipedia. Please note that I am only implying what was said in WP:Conduct, Policies and etc... It seems to be, in my understanding of your words, that we can violate WP:Rules & regulations simply because, it has been violated already. My word is final, I do not support violating Wiki Rules & Regulations. — Rammaum^talk_stalk 04:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are skewing the laws. W:NPA and Wikipedia:Civility applies among Wikipedians in discussions. W:NPOV only applies to articles, not the subject itself. While the act of Noynoying is considered offensive to President Aquino and those who support him, the question being raised here--as other Wikipedians have pointed out--is whether the article about Noynoying is notable and whether it is written with verifiability, neutrality, and independent sourcing. (As a Wikipedian who started the article about the Gucci Gang controversy, which was also nominated for almost the same grounds as Noynoying and was voted to keep, I know what I am talking about.) Starczamora (talk) 07:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly passes WP:GNG based on references, many of which are specifically about noynoying and are independent, reliable newspapers. Although we must tread carefully when dealing with articles on attacks on public figures, clearly the purpose of the article is to document the attack, rather than be an attack in itself. I read it over and I don't see any unsourced criticism of the figure (so no substantial WP:BLP issues) and quite a lot of it is dedicated to defenses against the attack, to the point where I don't think POV is an issue either. Counterarguments based on WP:NPA, Wikipedia:Civility, etc. make no sense as those are policies for editor behavior, not article content. (Note: article does appear to have been improved substantially since deletion discussion was opened - at that time it looked like this.) Dcoetzee 04:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Informative, well-sourced article. Kudos to those objecting to it, for their creativity in finding and citing not-quite-on-point Wikipedia policies and guidelines that, to inexperienced Wikipedia editors, might appear relevant. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Might want to check this out: Wikipedia users divided on ‘Noynoying’ article--Coin945 (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Summarize, Merge & Redirect to Benigno Aquino III. Although the subject has received some media coverage perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON for the subject to pass WP:EFFECT. In the mean time the article can be summarized, created into a section regarding the present President of the Fifth Republic of the Philippines; if it later gets too large and the article reaches 100K per WP:TOOLONG it can be spun out, or if it does pass WP:GNG WP:EVENT & WP:EFFECT later the redirect can be recreated as an article again. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That is what I am afraid of: merging the Noynoying article into that of President Aquino. As you can see, it does not contain a section that criticizes President Aquino because it has been how should I call it..."guarded" by his supporters. Starczamora (talk) 03:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response; although there are WP:BLP concerns, an article should also adhere to WP:NPOV and attempt to, in an unbias neutral way, incorporate criticism regarding a subject. No one owns an article and no article should be "guarded" in a manor if it only chooses to create a positive-POV towards the subject, for positive POV is still a POV push.

Perhaps you should bring up your concerns at WP:NPOVN, WP:BLPN, or at the talk page of President Aquino or WikiProject Tambayan.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. This is the kind of article--which smacks of lack of neutrality, and cannot even come up with a handful of credible, facts-based sources--that threatens the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole.

One. This article's tone is sorely lacking in neutrality, regardless of the act. Past edits have futilely attempted to lend an objectiveness to its approach to no avail--there just aren't credible resources to be found. Majority of the sources cited in this article would not pass Wikipedia's non-neutrality standards--discourse borne by one heavily biased side finding its way in a broadsheet.

Which brings us to: The sources are either editorial fodder, or the slow-news-day so typical of news outfits of the Philippines--someone has already linked to the article about a "division" among Wikipedia users, an article that extensively quotes passages above this in attempt to depict discord among us. Obviously, just because it's been picked up by the media, it does not mean it warrants a place in Wikipedia's records. It's a passing craze, a publicity gimmick--note that the articles are from only a handful of days ago. It's a pile of leaves thrown at a wildly popular administration, unfortunately for this article's creator.

It's rabble-rousing. It's using Wikipedia as a propagandist tool. The very presence of this Wikipedia article, and the discussions it's spawned within this site, has been the subject of editorials--which this article then cites. That's a lot of self-service right there.

Bottomline: Wikipedia should never be used to make the childish act of sticking one's tongue out any easier--especially since its non-neutrality and lack of credible resources make the name-calling so obvious. We're trying to preserve the dignity of this open forum; articles like this are two steps backwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnjaCruz (talk • contribs) 01:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I will point out your arguments one by one:

1) What lack of neutrality are you talking about? The Reception section included reactions from official spokesperson, from pundits favorable of Aquino, even President Aquino himself.

2) Specifically cite the sources you claim to be lacking in credibility. I have used the website versions of widely-read publications in the Philippines, including Philippine Daily Inquirer, Manila Bulletin, Philippine Star, and Journal group of tabloids.

3) Like all those who have voted for delete, you clearly dislike the Noynoying coverage to quote: It's a passing craze, a publicity gimmick--note that the articles are from only a handful of days ago. It's a pile of leaves thrown at a wildly popular administration, unfortunately for this article's creator. This statement smacks of WP:BIAS, so you cannot claim the article lacks in neutrality while your explanation is wanting of one.

4) The Wikipedians in favor of keeping this, myself included, agree that while the act of Noynoying smacks of propaganda, that does not means we should not make an article about it. See the following articles about propaganda subjects that have found its way in Wikipedia.

5) You obviously created a Wikipedia account solely for this discussion. May I suggest that you be WP:BOLD and contribute to the article Starczamora (talk) 07:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. It is appropriate in Urban Dictionary and not in Wikipidia. The Noynoying article is a propaganda and is using Wikipidia to promote the annoying word to the public. The content is bias and contain messages encouraging people to do Noynoying. It is only a short term hype because Noynoy Aquino is the current Philippine president and once his term of office end, the meme will also end. I will suggest that the creator of the article compile the Noynoying news in their blogs or sites and not in Wikipidia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Towr (talk • contribs) 11:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 1) In what way the article about Noynoying, not the act, is written in a propaganda fashion?

2) Your comment also reflects WP:BIAS, as you refer to Noynoying as "annoying."

3) It does not contain a message that encourage people to do Noynoying. The article featured an inforgraphic provided by Anakbayan, which is used on the article for the sole purpose of visual identification of what Noynoying poses look like, as well as how the group attempts to make it viral through social networks.

4) Wikipedia is not a crystal ball as to declare whether Noynoying will disappear once Aquino leaves office. That assumption did not apply to words like "Marcosian" and "Imeldific." Starczamora (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Noynoying - It is a new term to describe inaction due to incapability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michallanjohnlo (talk • contribs) 15:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources aren't even complete. there are others instances of the meme way back than what is stated in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.191.110.84 (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the sources to make the article complete. Thank you. Starczamora (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^ http://rakesh-jhunjhunwala.in/?dl_id=195&ei=o5lZT6CwBY6rrAeunqmCDA&usg=AFQjCNGYWD2vV37A_M3N9J3i5AhKge-g_Q Page 9
^ http://in.linkedin.com/pub/brij-raj-singh/20/48a/16 Brij Raj's LinkedIn profile
^ http://www.bseindia.com/xml-data/corpfiling/AttachHis/A2Z_Maintenance_&_Engineering_Services_Ltd_010611.pdf a document listing the renewable energy plants in India by BSE India
^ A document by Dun & Bradstreet listing major projects by A2Z Group http://www.dnb.co.in/Leading_Infrastructure_companies2011/Profile%5CA2Z%20Maintenance%20&%20Engineering%20Services.pdf
^ http://www.indiacore.com/bulletin/10mar-New-Distribution-Franchise-Model.html Article on A2Z Group's contribution to Power Distribution