< 9 May 11 May >
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 delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Oquendo[edit]

Jonathan Oquendo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced BLP about a boxer who fails WP:NSPORTS#Boxing. He's had no world title fights and has never been ranked in the top 10 (current Boxrec rank is 31st in his division). Papaursa (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep Dipankan (Have a chat?) 15:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Angampora[edit]

Angampora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is nothing that shows this is a notable martial art or that it meets any of the criteria at WP:MANOTE. None of the sources show notability and claims of dating back 3000 years are unsourced. Papaursa (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Per WP:NRVE, ..."The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable." Northamerica1000(talk) 02:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the sources you mention show significant reliable coverage. The book has a 1 sentence mention and the newspaper is an interview with someone who says his family has been studying and carrying on this martial art for many centuries, but there's no supporting evidence. I've seen many examples of people claiming to know secret martial arts that have been passed down for generations without giving a single shred of proof and it's made me a bit jaded. I haven't seen anything that shows this martial art meets any of the 5 criteria supporting notability mentioned at WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that any particular claims are true: this could be some simple kids' game invented a century ago that has been re-branded as a martial art. The book is only the oldest mention that appeared to be a reliable source to me, there were several others, and Google Scholar hits too. Whatever it is this thing called Angampora appears to have been around for at least half a century and is talked about in major newspapers in Sri Lanka where it's purported to be from; this says to me that it has sufficient notability to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia, even just a stub that only contains the bare minimum verifiable information presented in a tenative way and isn't categorized as a martial art. (Though also, I'm noting that WP:MANOTE is just an essay, not a guideline or policy; but I appreciate the urban legendy nature of obscure martial arts.) --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 06:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'Angampora' the local martial art needs to be revived". Daily News (Sri Lanka). September 1, 2007. Retrieved May 13, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • Amarasekara, Janani (June 17, 2007). "Angampora - Sri Lankan martial art". Sunday Observer (Sri Lanka). Retrieved May 13, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • Wasala, Chinthana (24 November 2007). "Bandara to promote 'Angampora'". Sri Lanka Daily News. Retrieved 10 May 2012.
  • "Bringing ancient form of martial art to the people". The Sunday Times (Sri Lanka). August 21, 2011. Retrieved May 13, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • "Weaponry used in "Angampora"". Sri Lanka Department of National Museums. Retrieved May 13, 2012. ((cite web)): External link in |publisher= (help)
—Northamerica1000(talk) 02:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://exploresrilanka.lk/2010/07/angampora-the-martial-art-of-sri-lankan-kings/ BernardZ (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is Wikipedia, Peter. A work in progress. Stubs are entirely legitimate. Here is how our article on Banana started. Would it be better to delete it and wait until someone writes a more detailed article? I don't think so. Short articles might inspire others to expand the information. The article Angampora — as it stands — provides a brief description of the topic and gives five independent sources. It is better than nothing. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stubs are fine but there just isn't enough there to even imply notability. I can find press mentions of myself but if all there was in the article my age and hair colour .... anyway what I meant is that even a stub should have enough information.Peter Rehse (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • These aren't simply passing mentions in media, these are entire newspaper articles treating the topic as a notable one. Do you have a collection in a national museums department devoted to you? But besides that, the argument you are making about deletion isn't a valid one under Wikipedia policy; a Wikipedia article being poorly written or poorly sourced does not render its topic non-notable. There is no "improve it or it must be deleted" principle like this. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 00:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 09:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Hammond[edit]

Cliff Hammond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not think these awards actually make for notability--I think it is sales manager of the year for kitchen products in Sweden. DGG ( talk ) 23:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The award was not in Sweden at all; it was available for several years as a national award in the United Kingdom.

A photo of the award: http://i47.tinypic.com/2prgy8h.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.54.16 (talk) 07:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 09:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

K.D Pathak[edit]

K.D Pathak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not so notable character of a not-so-notable Indian Tv show. No references establishing notability of character. Also fails WP:GNG §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 30 April 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, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. obvious bad faith nomination. DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

America's Next Top Model, Cycle 18[edit]

AfDs for this article:
America's Next Top Model, Cycle 18 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Switch to Speedy Keep The posts brought up by Life of Riley make clear that nothing except an agenda push unrelated to ANTM was the reason for this nom. We don't need this AfD stretched out further or for this to be dragged into the MMA discussion. Nate • (chatter) 23:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is really presumptuous of you to comment on the nominators motive, as you have no insight into his thinking process. Regardless, this article fails Wiki standards based on my post above, and for that reason should be deleted. This isn't a fan site for "America's Next Top Model", it is an encyclopedia. Such a shallow reality show is not fit for an encyclopedia entry, especially not dozens of articles on every little nuance related to the show. At the very least, merge all the individual articles into one entry for "America's Next Top Model" and be done with it. This isn't a fan site, this isn't a news site. Wikipedia is not the place for up-to-the-minute update news from reality TV. AugustWest1980 (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion of nominations[edit]

For courtesy, a point out that these two nominations are being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:POINTy nominations of ANTM articles, though we could use some sensible discussion about this (I am not willing to be dragged into the MMA discussion at all). Nate • (chatter) 23:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. obvious bad faith nomination. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

America's Next Top Model[edit]

America's Next Top Model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The enduring notability WP:NOTABLE is undetermined for this reality television contest, as a result it fails virtually all criteria for WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. This page seems to be little more than a promotional tool for the show and a personal agenda for fans. This is not a America's Next Top Model fan page. There are no reliable sources WP:IRS to show the validity of this "contest". Mississippistfan (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Switch to Speedy Keep The posts brought up by Life of Riley in the nom for Cycle 18 make clear that nothing except an agenda push unrelated to ANTM was the reason for this nom. We don't need this AfD stretched out further or for this to be dragged into the MMA discussion. Nate • (chatter) 23:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion of nominations[edit]

For courtesy, a point out that these two nominations are being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:POINTy nominations of ANTM articles, though we could use some sensible discussion about this (I am not willing to be dragged into the MMA discussion at all). Nate • (chatter) 23:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Kept, no consensus. A merge may be appropriate but this can be done outside AFD. JYolkowski // talk 01:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Wooster Scot Center[edit]

The Wooster Scot Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ágoston Garamvölgyi[edit]

Ágoston Garamvölgyi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about footballer who is mentioned in a few obituaries - seemingly only notable as a reserve goalkeeper for Honvéd. Doesn't appear to be the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources (all obits I found are derivative of one published in the Nezmeti Sport) and I cannot verify that he played in a fully-pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without explanation. Jogurney (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with someone having both an English and Hungarian entry? Ifore2012 (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only nominating the article in the English Wikipedia for deletion. Jogurney (talk) 22:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 04:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Santhosh Pandit[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santhosh Pandit (4th nomination)

AfDs for this article:
Santhosh Pandit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Proposes deletion as per WP:BLP1E. Biography of a living person. Subject notable only for one event.

An extract of the policy:

Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:

  1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
  2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
  3. It is not the case that the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented—as in the case of John Hinckley, Jr., who shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981.

The subject was in news just for only one event: an amateur film he made all by himself (acted, directed, written, ...), and which he screened in just one rented theater. And it was in news not for its quality but for its notoriety, for the infamy it earned, for the peculiar way such a bad product was received (with the viewers celebrating with oaths and abusive language). So even if we should have this 'great' incident recorded in the 'history' of cinema, then we could merge this article into Krishnanum Radhayum the article on the only film he made and which was the only reason of his appearance in news for a few months. Even for the most technical of the reasons, this article is not qualified to exist, since the subject was in news only for a single event (and of-course for its reverberations for a few more months).

And please note that there is no difference of opinion with the quality of the article. It is indeed well written. The problem is with the notability of the subject. That the subject was notable for only one event which has now lost its news value. Please do focus on WP:BLP1E in the discussion.

Austria156 (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you are not familiar with the issue. I have just made my point clearer. Could you please reconsider your opinion? Thanks. Austria156 (talk) 22:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In AfD3 BLP1E was not proved wrong. It failed due to an 'overwhelming' majority of keep votes. But should AfDs be decided by voting majority or for the issue raised? Why AfD4 on the same grounds after a failed AfD3? Because the subject is not anymore in the news and BLP1E is better proved now for those who are too technical about it. Austria156 (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not with the article. The problem is with the notability of the subject. Please look at WP:BLP1E. Please. Austria156 (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
His first and only film was material for television news. (It did not find place in any of the reputed print dailies). And an encyclopedia is not place for shortlived news-entertainment. The question of WP:BLP1E is not yet answered. His second film was only an ambitious announcement or rather a boasting during the hype of the first film. It is not heard of ever since. Could you provide links to some reliable newspaper report on his second film since Jan 2012? Could anybody give some evidence that it is infact under production? Austria156 (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You made your point already and I don't think you hane to make your point again and again and challenge the opinion of all other Wikipedians. Please wait for the AfD decision. Santosh Pandit related news , articles and interviews were there in leading dailies like Malayala Manorama, Mathrubhumi, Times of India, Deccan Chronicle etc. The shooting location reports and songs of his second film was covered by Asianet, Indiavision, Reporter etc. You can also find videos in YouTube.
Anish Viswa 02:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. See wikipedia guidelines on AfD discussions, and see archived AfDs. This is a discussion and every new argument can be, and ought to be answered. No offense intended, I'm just pointing out what you might have overseen.
You keep on making the same point and argument all the time, that is what I said.
Anish Viswa 03:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Please provide specific references to establish reliable media coverage. Thanks. Austria156 (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think notability needs to be re-established time and again, please go through the 16 references available in Santhosh Pandit article and just see in which all print and visual media is he covered and also from whom he received an award.
Anish Viswa 03:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Santhosh Pandit was news in the last quarter of 2011. It is a fact needing no proof. Shall I copy paste my previous request here: "Could you provide links to some reliable newspaper report on his second film since Jan 2012? Could anybody give some evidence that it is infact under production?". The argument is that Santhosh Pandit was news, and just short lived news. Not fit for an encyclopedia. Hence WP:BLP1E. He just became famous for an uncommon act, which may not ever happen again. Remember if dog bit man it is not news, but if man bites dog it definitely is news, but that info does not go into an encyclopedia in these words: "man is an organism that might bite a dog in the most rarest of situaions". And if you find such a statement in an encyclopedia you will stop trusting it as an reliable source. So let us try to make our encyclopedia clean. Austria156 (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E does not by itself create a deletion argument.  The topic must also be unworthy of keeping as a redirect.  If the one-event is notable, pretty much by definition we won't be deleting the redirect of the person involved.  Next, single events can be notable—a benchmark that has been mentioned is Balloon boy hoax.  Third, films are not events.  I'll moreso add the opinion that films are like books in being publications that will endure as long as Wikipedia endures.  Fourth, being news does not mean that material is not encyclopedic, see the nutshell of WP:N, which says that newspapers can be used as sources.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Problem one: We are going too technical here. Those from outside Kerala who are responding on this, make an impression on reading the article itself and the references. They do not know Santhosh Pandit neither do they know about his film neither do they know why it became news. People in Kerala knows why I am raising this issue. The case with Santhosh Pandit was just a 'crazy' news for Malayalees to laugh about, and talk about and have fun with. Nobody is going to remember the name Santhosh Pandit after a couple of years.
Problem two: Do every piece of film screened in a theatre anywhere in the world has a right to be in wikipedia? If I make an amateur video and screen it in a rented theatre, and make enough noise in media to attract attention, become myself a clown, and manages to be in the news for a few weeks or even months through notoriety, then could I have a page all for myself in Wikipedia until the world ends? (That was what Santhosh Pandit did. (Contest this and I will cite references from the article itself.)) There needs to be something that qualifies a piece of moving picture to have its own article in an encyclopedia, isn't it? At least Wikipedians generally thinks so. If else what does this mean: Wikipedia:Notability (films)? Thanks. And my God! This is a job! Austria156 (talk) 05:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not interested in an argument, but since you dragged Keralites into this, I am also from Kerala and I know Santhosh Pandit is well known and notable now. It is not his fault that he made a film all by his efoort, that should be appreciated. Also, his film is not an amateur video, it received a proper censor certificate. He leased only 3 theatres in the initial week, later the film released in over 40 theatres all over Kerala. The film had it home video released and also aired on Television He is not in news currently since his second film is under production. He will be in news again, once the film hit theatres. We can't delete articles based on current notability basis. This article was decided to be kept based on last AfD with a clear conclusion that the subject is notable and fit to be in Wikipedia.
Anish Viswa 05:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I urge very strongly to keep the article and even not to entertain yet another request for deletion in the future regardless of how flamboyant or exuberant Santhosh Pandit may continue to show up in the public life of Kerala. As a person of article, he has already earned enough to be in the pages of Wikipedia by now. Remember, Wikipedia is not a pulp newspaper that keeps deleting or 'forgetting' articles as someone just feels like. ViswaPrabhaവിശ്വപ്രഭtalk 06:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately this is where the article lead uninformed readers to. This was not a major film. And this was not even a normal film. Let me repeat what I said earlier: "If somebody make an amateur video and screen it in a couple of rented theatres, and make enough noise in media to attract attention becoming himslef a clown, and manages to be in the news for a few weeks or even months through notoriety, then could he have a page all for himself in Wikipedia until the world ends?" (This is not a POV. See the reference within the article itself. You could read it straight. No need even to read between the lines). If the answer is yes. Then I Quit, And democracy wins. Austria156 (talk) 16:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Malayalee supporters of the article, See what impressions others get about Santhosh Pandit and his film here. They read it has won an award and was 'commercially successful'. They do not know what kind of an award and what the commercial success was. Where does this place Wikipedia? Please don't make Wikipedia a laughing stock. The article gives wrong impression about this guy and his work. Austria156 (talk) 15:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not Malayalee. Do your home work. And in case you think that some info is presented wrongly, edit it and help present it correctly. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hand-to-mouth food disease.[edit]

Hand-to-mouth food disease. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The title is unrelated to the subject body. Furthermore, the content is already has a WP page, if the author wanted, he can simply improve on it. Kinkreet~♥moshi moshi♥~ 21:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hillebrand[edit]

Michael Hillebrand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not yet notable per WP:NSPORT or WP:NMMA. All references are for amateur matches, and I can't find any evidence online that he's appeared in anything higher than what's referenced in the article. Proposed deletion contested by page's creator. Scopecreep (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No evidence of notability presented under any guideline or policy, WP:GNG or otherwise. joe deckertalk to me 20:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Colonial Socio-Political History of Kokori Inland[edit]

Pre-Colonial Socio-Political History of Kokori Inland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previous Prod with rationale "No evidence that this bachelor's degree dissertation has any encyclopaedic notability." Prod removed by article creator so bringing it to AfD on the same rationale. AllyD (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Baston[edit]

Daniel Baston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: GNG / WP:NFOOTY. No national team play in the olympics or WC according to provided sources. I can find none through research either. Newmanoconnor (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 21:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STOCK[edit]

STOCK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Couldn't find any RS, hard to use google since that generic name. mabdul 21:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Dipankan (Have a chat?) 04:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Rockdust[edit]

Rockdust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be more advertising than attributable facts Lithopsian (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No more arguments for deletion. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cottesmore School[edit]

Cottesmore School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable UK Prep School. No references to indicate notability. Does not pass WP:GNG First4Uppingham (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)— First4Uppingham (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dahliarose (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 07:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
^ Margaret Smallwood (2008), Cottesmore School, Independent Schools Inspectorate — I assume there are inspection reports of all schools, so one on Cottesmore is unremarkable
^ The Morning Post (London, England), Monday, March 29, 1897; pg. 5; Issue 38941. 19th Century British Library Newspapers: Part II. – about the building, not the school I can't easily read this. Does it have much of substance?
^ English Heritage listing — about the building, not the school
^ Mark Girouard (1971), The Victorian Country House, Clarendon Press, p. 8 — about the building, not the school
^ Jill Franklin (1981), The Gentleman's Country House and its Plan, 1835-1914, Routledge & Kegan Paul, p. 257 — about the building, not the school
^ Main building to Cottesmore School. Listing on English Heritage's Images of England website — about the building, not the school
^ End of school dinners. The Evening Standard, (London, England), Tuesday, September 15, 2009 — I can't easily read this (paywalled). Does it contain much of substance about the school?
^ The Almost Late Gordon Chater, Bantam Books, 1996, ISBN 9781863597975 — I can't easily read this. However, I assume it only mentions in passing that Chater attended the school.
^ The Encyclopedia Britannica, 20, 1929 — I can't easily read this. However, I assume it only mentions in passing that Sopwith attended the school.
(And anyway, as regards famous alumni, most schools have them, so this is unremarkable.)
I'm interested by DGG's comment that sometimes buildings, rather than occupying organisations, are made the subject of articles. And the building does to me look quite striking and perhaps worthy of an article. Now, suppose the school were to move again, this time into a nondescript building. I think the school would probably be deemed non-notable. But this would go against the principle that notability is not temporary.
Is the building notable though? I'm not certain — there seem to be around 400,000 Grade II buildings — I think it might be. It is quite an imposing building, and the ostrich millionaire history perhaps tips the balance.
Hence I would change my opinion about article's existence to weak keep if it were renamed Buchan Hill (or similar). NB: I still don't think the article should be essentially about the school.--A bit iffy (talk) 09:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Given that no one apart from the sockpuppet nominator actually thinks that this page shouldn't exist, I would suggest that this AfD be closed as a speedy keep. The editorial discussion as to whether the article should be renamed could then continue on the appropriate talk page. WP:GNG is just one part of the WP:N guideline, but this is a guideline not a policy. The article satisfies our core policies WP:V and WP:NOR. It is a pointless exercise analysing the few sources that have been found to date, as no one has as yet spent much time working on the article. Also only a tiny fraction of the sources to support subject matter such as this will be found online. Time would be much better spent improving Wikipedia rather than prolonging this discussion. Dahliarose (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep as part of a pattern of intentionally disruptive AFD nominations and contributions. First4Uppingham (talk · contribs), ZachFoutre (talk · contribs), and 213.246.93.122 (talk · contribs) are clearly one and the same person, and the contributions history gave the game away. Uncle G (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham Blue Coat School[edit]

Birmingham Blue Coat School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reason: Non notable UK primary school. Does not pass WP:GNG First4Uppingham (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dahliarose (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the "WP:GNG criteria for organisations"?  WP:GNG is the "general notability guideline".  Unscintillating (talk) 04:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is almost certainly the nominator. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a policy based argument. Sources with significant coverage are required, and here there is nothing sufficient to pass WP:GNG. 213.246.93.122 (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You make the common beginner's mistake of assuming that opinions are not valid in AfD discussions. You are incorrect. But if you really want one, here's a policy-based argument: Use common sense! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you might start by listing 2 sources which you believe indicate notability for this school, and which would satisfy WP:RS for the purpose of notability as defined by WP:GNG. 213.246.93.122 (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And perhaps you might start by reading what people write before answering. Oh, and not using three different sockpuppets would be nice too! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Aaron Rodgers. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Rodgers Day[edit]

Aaron Rodgers Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable/ hoax day author removed PROD Lerdthenerd wiki defender 20:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Al E.(talk) 15:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

<--

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

The result was nothing really/invalid nomination, since this is not a deletion request. Merging doesn't require administrative intervention, and it doesn't seem anyone objects, so that's at normal editorial discretion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

XBRLS[edit]

XBRLS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I doubt that this notable to get it's enough article, maybe merge it to XBRL. mabdul 19:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: This may have been a little hastily created but let's get consensus before closing it
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After discussion, result of an AfD can be a merge but the procedural complaint by myself (and I presume user:Unscintillating) is that you shouldn't open an AfD unless you want the article deleted wholesale. If from the outset, you think a merge is in order, WP:SOFIXIT. If you're not up for the work, it can indeed take a while for another volunteer to get around to doing it for you. --Kvng (talk) 17:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

-->

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Duke[edit]

Donna Duke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No assertion of notability per WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:PORNBIO; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested without comment by page's creator. Scopecreep (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
article reads like an advert - and is promotional in nature.
contains two link spam entries to her websites
references lack a single WP:RS source. - therefore this should be removed immediately from Wikipedia
I recommend censuring the creator for introducing link spam etc in the guise of serious editing.

BO; talk 00:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy delete via A7, organization with no plausible claim to importance. (at the moment, according to the article, it has only one member) DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Xi Omega[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Alpha Xi Omega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor newly started organization, not notable. Note this is a different Alpha Xi Omega (This one is in the Philippines) than the one in the first nomination.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shlumpadinka[edit]

Shlumpadinka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and It should be redirected or deleted Yasht101 02:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:50, 26 April 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, →Bmusician 01:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fzcentral[edit]

Fzcentral (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable failing WP:BAND. Four references that are a combination of trivial and self-published QU TalkQu 08:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hank Quense[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Hank Quense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find enough coverage in reliable sources to prove that Quense passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies. The NorthJersey.com source in the article was the best I could find. The article was deleted at AfD in 2008, but I'm not sure if the article is sufficiently similar to the old one to be able to delete it under CSD G4, or whether any new sources have appeared since then. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 18:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see he is now listed on Amazon (per the deletion discussion in 2008) but I do not know if that is enough to meet notability. The page also has a leans towards advertisement language in reference to his classes/writing seminars. I would second deletion. DietFoodstamp (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Princeton Progressive Nation[edit]

Princeton Progressive Nation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable student publication. No secondary sources supporting its notability independent from the University. Appears to be defunct (its website has lapsed hosting). Axem Titanium (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I said it may still be notable via the two papers that merged to create it. Softlavender (talk) 05:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't AFD the time to decide whether it is or not? The article has been around for 6 years with no secondary sources. A quick jaunt in the Google turns up a dozen primary sources, which can't be used as evidence for notability, but not secondary/tertiary sources. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still Creek Ranch[edit]

Still Creek Ranch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N and WP:RS. School has around 70 students, not many. Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 17:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I don't think the number of students has a bearing on notability. I can't see that in WP:WPSCH/AG#N. Is there another policy that speaks to that? Wikipelli Talk 21:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed just how quick the speedy was - that's out of order. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Joy Vachachira[edit]

Joy Vachachira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This individual does not meet the criteria Wikipedia requires to establish notability. In the two references provided, he is just mentioned in photo captions. There are 160 unique Ghits[7], but the coverage is minimal (ie, just his name in address directories) and the sources are not reliable and independent (facebook, LinkedIn, blogs, etc.) The single hit in Google news archives is about car accident he was in. Also, the claim he is notable rests on his past presidency of the Knanaya Catholic Congress of North America, which does not itself meet the notability criteria - only 120 unique Google hits[8] and they are all primary, trivial, and/or not reliable. No hits for the organization on Google News, Books or Scholar. This one seems like a pretty clear delete, to me. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dureal[edit]

Dureal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability questions - does the number 1 player in Jedi Knight constitute a sufficient claim to notability? Are there multiple non-trivial mentions to support such a claim? Article is sourced to one website as of this nomination. Syrthiss (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Setting aside the comments from SPAs on both sides which aren't grounded in any kind of policy, it's clear that this doesn't quite meet notability requirements. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout: Equestria[edit]

Fallout: Equestria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested WP:PROD. I listed my original concern as "No assertion of notability through reliable, published sources. Does not meet general notability guidelines as all sources are Wikis, Youtube, or other various fansites. No coverage in reliable third party media sources." I can't find any significant coverage from reliable sources. Teancum (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Noteworthy - Both the Fallout video game series and the My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic television series are noteworthy enough to merit their own Wikipedia articles, as is the brony sub-culture. Fallout: Equestria is widely recognized amongst the fan cultures of both shows, and has gained a prominent place within the brony sub-culture. It is highly regarded enough that it is currently being translated into four languages. To the best of my knowledge, virtually all coverage of this work is by sites and groups dedicated to the parent intellectual properties, including sites dedicated to news regarding those properties.
Re: Reliable Sources Sources meet WP:IRS standards as per the Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources page (Definition of 'reliable source')
The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings:
Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both.
The article sites sources which include both the first (piece of work itself) and the second (the writer). The definition of "publishing", according to Wikipedia's article on Publishing is "the process of production and dissemination of literature or information — the activity of making information available to the general public. In some cases, authors may be their own publishers, meaning: originators and developers of content also provide media to deliver and display the content for the same." By Wikipedia's own definition, Equestria Daily and other sites that host internet works do qualify as "publishers of the work" and thus the article fulfills the third criteria for reliable sources as well. If additional sources of distribution are required, they can also be provided. 75.87.248.119 (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The types of sources that establish notability are ones that are independent from the content in question. Neither the "piece of work" or "the writer" qualify as this. Sources that establish notability would be, for instance, if IGN or The New York Times did an article on it. None of the sources you just provided do though. Sergecross73 msg me 03:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of the examples given, IGN and The New York Times, report on either this style of publication or subsection of culture. It is impossible to establish notability from sources "independent from the content in question" when all sources which would report on this are immediately classified as being non-independent in order to prevent establishment of notability. For example: Equestria Daily is a site which compiles and reports on news and interest pieces for one of the subcultures in question, as well as publishes stories by member of that subculture which pass through a rigorous quality control screening. It is not a "fan site" for Fallout: Equestria, yet it is being conveniently dismissed as a "reliable source" -- apparently because it can be used as a source. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 08:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Equestria Daily does not fit Wikipedia's definition of a WP:RS. I mean, look no further than the opening paragraph of it's own article: Equestria Daily... is 2011-established fan site dedicated to news and fan fiction...The site is run with a blog-style. It's a blog started by a college student a year ago about a cartoon. It's unquestionably not a reliable source. IGN and NYT were just well-known examples that I figured anyone could identify, we don't specifically need coverage by them, but we do need it from somewhere reliable like them. Sergecross73 msg me 13:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please read up on WP:RS and WP:GNG in order to understand things better. "Creating your own fandom" doesn't help an article notable, it's coverage in sources that are separate from the source, and not fansites. Sergecross73 msg me 03:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal website would not meet the qualifications required to be a WP:RS, it'd be more along the lines of a fansite or blog, which is not a RS. Furthermore, it'd probably be somewhat of a conflict of interest if you're writing the article using sources from your own personal website. Sergecross73 msg me 03:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed --Codepony (talk) 07:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It should not be a surprise the many of the people (such as myself) who have taken notice of this article and have chosen to defend it against deletion would have similar stances on the article's validity. It is more surprising that Sergecross73 would slyly disparage these other contributors in an attempt to lessen the value perceived in their arguments as opposed than standing on the presumed strength of his own opinions. Let us please try to keep this civil. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 08:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not surprised, and it's pretty common practice to point out when multiple users share the same, flawed argument and act in the same way at an AFD. (For example, not understanding the WP:GNG or what counts as a third party source, their only interest being one single topic, all chosing to write "Do Not Delete" when "Keep" is typically used, etc.) It tends to suggest either sockpuppetry or a fansite sending members over to defend a given topic. Both things the closing Admin should consider. I've done nothing wrong or incivil. Sergecross73 msg me 13:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the same merits, then, it should also be pointed out that the large majority of those voting for the deletion of this article are just parroting what you are saying, without adding anything useful to the conversation or demonstrating a grasp of the rules they are attempting to invoke. (For example: "Not notable no sources yadda yadda".) This is suggestive of possible sockpuppetry or, more likely, an anti-brony or anti-fanfiction hate-site sending members over to try to destroy the article out of maliciousness. I will agree that there is reason to debate whether this article meets Wikipedia standards. You should admit that it is reasonable to question the motivations of those who are looking to have the article deleted. There is a strong appearance that this is largely (although certainly not entirely) an effort at within-the-guidelines vandalism by one person with a working knowledge of Wikipedia and his cronies. This undermines the entire process, and is something the closing Admin should also consider.

64.126.161.222 (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested to know -are there any "anti-brony" sites? I've never even heard of one. Twoflower88 (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. For example, Niggest Crook Force which is an anti-brony group primarily dedicated to using dummy accounts to file fraudulent copyright claims against videos posted on YouTube by bronies, and then advertise their "victories" on disposable hub accounts. To date, their biggest victory was an attack on the brony-orchistrated SMILE Christmas charity for children with cancer. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 07:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me I have never met any of you before in my life. Are you saying this is some kind of conspiracy to commit page murder.

XxMiAmIPiMpiNxx (talk) 09:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you observe the page history of the original article, you will discover that Fallout: Equestria has already survived vandalism of the sort that Wikipedia is skilled at protecting against. That may have no connection to you (although the timing and expressed attitudes are suspiciously similar). Based on that information, and "contributions" such as your own here, it can be safely extrapolated that there is an effort by multiple parties to kill the article out of prejudice towards the subject matter or similar maliciousness. Whether or not such efforts are co-ordinated would be a matter of speculation. However, it should be noted that there is an anti-fanfiction website called Project A.F.T.E.R. which has taken note of this article. Members of that website have been known to troll and vandalize sites hosting information about fanfictions they are targeting. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 09:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay one that website looks like some interesting reading I've never seen it before and two you can't really justify keeping an article on wikipedia by saying "a lot of pony fans like it". The fact is, there are places for this kind of thing (fan wikis, fan sites, tvtropes, etc) that are not here. Wikipedia's got notability for a reason, and they require published sources for a reason, and this article doesn't belong here. If someone wanted to know about it badly enough they'd be looking on a pony fanfiction site about it, they probably wouldn't expect it to be here. Trying to keep this article, if you will excuse my blatant conjecturing, is just a move to try and improve upon its status from the fans. It's pretty close to vanity imo and, again, doesn't belong here because wikipedia has standards which this doesn't meet. XxMiAmIPiMpiNxx (talk) 10:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. Now you're actually contributing to the discussion. Allow me to offer my own blatant conjecture. This story recently had a footnote in the "longest novels" article on Wikipedia. Certain individuals who hated the My Little Pony fandom started vandalizing that page. The vandalism was reversed repeatedly, but this sparked an argument over whether "pony shit" belonged on that page (or Wikipedia in general). Arguments against it were made by people trying to hold that entry to Wikipedia's most stringent standards -- standards that an awful lot of the other entries on that page didn't meet. The end result was that not only was the "pony shit" removed from the article, but an entire section of the article was obliterated because the vast majority of the stories mentioned didn't meet the qualifications that anti-bronies were trying to use to surgically remove just the stories they didn't like. In the course of the preceding argument, one of Wikipedia's guardians against vandalism asserted that Fallout: Equestria had enough of a sub-cultural impact that it could soon deserve its own page. It is my conjecture that this article is the result of someone in the brony community reading that argument and saying "well, let's find out". On a related note, this article is part of the coverage of the Fallout series of video games and the influence of those games, part of Wikipedia's Wikiproject Video Games. There are a lot of articles within Wikiproject Video Games (and the Fallout-related section in particular) that do not meet the level of "notability" that people are trying to use to remove this page. A push to remove this article could result in a blow-back that wipes out numerous non-pony, non-fanfiction articles within the Wikiproject Video Games. I don't want to see Wikipedia history repeat itself on a much larger scale. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 11:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, you're saying that not only should we keep an article that doesn't adhere to wikipedia's source and notability policies, but we shouldn't take it down because doing so would get rid of many other articles that also don't adhere to these policies? XxMiAmIPiMpiNxx (talk) 11:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that whether this article meets Wikipedia's standards is determined by how liberally or conservatively Wikipedia's policies are interpreted. And that if Wikipedia is serious about projects like Wikiproject Video Games, it benefits them to continue the more liberal interpretations that allow such projects to grow. That means that the Wikipedia admins should not allow people with a prejudice against some subject matter to use extremely conservative interpretations of Wikipedia's Policies to get articles about that subject matter removed. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the thing is this article's only notability sources are a bunch of fan stuff. It's not a conservative interpretation, it's actually going against the actual, stated guidelines for sources. Articles get deleted all the time because the only sources they can find are fan publications. This one shouldn't be any different, and if you're claiming that wikipedia should "grow" with unverified non-notable articles then I suggest you write an entry for this work in tvtropes instead. (Oh my god you guys I feel like a real wikipede all of a sudden) XxMiAmIPiMpiNxx (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TV Tropes has had an article about this story for about half a year now. As for notability sources, the issue I'm seeing is that no one seems to be able to provide a source that would both qualify for notability and would cover web-published fanfiction. For example, this story draws from the Fallout series and thus it falls in the realm of Fallout's impact in other media. However, the very quality that makes it potentially noteworthy in a Fallout article also prohibits it from being published by a for-profit press. So if you restrict "reliable sources" to for-profit presses, you automatically prevent the story or any other like it from ever qualifying -- not based on the merits or influence of the work but on the bias of the policy. Now, as noted above, the Wikipedia policy for "reliable sources" is much broader than that... until all applicable sources for sites and agencies which report on or deal with the subject matter are classified as "a bunch of fan stuff". Equestria Daily is regarded as a "fan site" primarily because it is a site for a subject matter that the people making the classification consider irrelevant. If those same people considered movies irrelevant, they would classify Rotten Tomatoes as a "fan site for movie fans". Sites like IGN are considered "reliable sources" instead of "really big fan sites" largely due to a matter of scale and a predisposition to accept what is being covered as potentially important. At what point does the scope, following and impact of a site move it beyond the threshold of "a bunch of fan stuff" to "a reliable source of information on a specific topic"? And if we strip away the personal biases involved here, have any of the sources cited crossed that threshold? Or gotten close enough to merit keeping the article, although perhaps in a different form? 64.126.161.222 (talk) 14:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See, you're talking about changing project and site wide standards. This is not the place to do that, or the time to change how we look at sources. You'd do that elsewhere, on a Wikipedia-wide discussion regarding standards for sources and notability. We're talking about this particular article, with the current particular standards. And it just doesn't meet it. Sergecross73 msg me 20:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Baseless claims of the influence of this fanbase does not help prove notability. We need multiple, significant, third party reliable sources that prove it, separate from the source or ED. We need several, and not a single one has been provided yet. Sergecross73 msg me 13:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Try to avoid insulting people you don't agree with. "Does not meet my personal interpretation of significance" is not the same as "baseless". According to the rules for Wikipedia articles, truth is not the same as validity. You can argue that the claims of influence are not valid, but the references should leave no question that the claims of influence are true. And by merit of verifiable, documented accuracy, those claims are not baseless. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not a "personal interpretation". Those are Wikipedia Policies. The only "interpretations" here are the sources on the article. Androids101 | Visit me! | talk | contribs 11:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Baseless" isn't an attack on you personally, it's that you still haven't provided any Wikipedia-standard reliable sources that demonstrate this "influence" you speak of. I'd expect someone to do the same to me if I wrote a long paragraph talking about something's influence without listing any sources to back up what I say. Which is why, typically when !vote that I want an article to be kept, I list off a ton of sources that backs up what I say. Sergecross73 msg me 19:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Either you are using a definition of "influence" that is unfamiliar to me, or you are being deliberately obtuse, or you are using technicalities to maintain denial. The influence of the story -- other stories, art, media, websites dedicated solely to the story, articles on sites related to My Little Pony and Fallout, etc -- is factual and demonstrated through the provided sources. Your arguments are the equivalent of saying "No matter how many pictures you've shown me of black people, you haven't proven black people exist, much less are noteworthy, because none of those photographs are from newspapers." 64.126.161.222 (talk) 08:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Flawed analogy. Existence=/= notability. I don't deny the existence of this fanfiction. I deny its WP:NOTABILITY, because no reliable third party sources are covering. There's a band down the street that is popular in the area, and has a Facebook page with 20 followers. It proves it exists. But it sure doesn't establish notability. Same concept with this fanfiction and just about any of the sources presented thus far. Sergecross73 msg me 14:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand the problem you two are having. Using your analogy, if that band down the street is popular enough to have inspired 20 other bands who follow in the first band's example and pay tribute to it in their songs, and each of those bands had Facebook pages claiming that original band as their inspiration, then that original band has influence. It may still not have WP:NOTABILITY, but claiming that there is no proof of influence, and speaking derisively about claims of influence, is erroneous and belligerent on your part. A large part of the !votes against deletion seem grounded in the concept that influence should count towards WP:NOTABILITY. An understandable confusion since you are the primary voice for deletion, and you keep making the mistake of using them interchangeably. 75.87.248.119 (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When Sergecross73 uses the word "influence", he means "WP:NOTABILITY". He is mis-using the word; influence ≠ Notability. Fallout: Equestria's influence (as per the dictionary definition of the word) has been established by the article and is not in question. It is Fallout: Equestria's Notability (capital "N", as per the Wikipedia guidelines) that is in question. HTH. 75.87.248.119 (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I am saying is that there aren't any reliable third party sources attesting to this "influence", and as such, it can't be used to establish it's notability. That's what matters as far this article goes. Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While there are several strong reasons as to why this article should be deleted, your personal disposition towards the subject matter in question is not one of them. --Yamamoto114 (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The DeviantArt reference is, to the best of my understanding, there merely as evidence supporting the article's statement regarding art communities and the impressive amount of works that have been inspired by Fallout: Equestria. Regardless of whether it is a "reliable source" for purposes of notability, the reference does help establish the accuracy of facts stated in the article. Regarding that rule of thumb, it should be noted that Equestria Daily passes that test. 75.87.248.119 (talk) 04:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But it is still a user-contributed content. I could go on deviantart and write a blatant hoax and would the hoax gets its own WP article? Nope. Androids101 &#124 Visit me! | talk | contribs 11:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Before commenting, it might be a good idea to pay attention to what the person you are responding to has actually said. The references you are complaining do not meet Wikipedia's standards as "reliable sources" aren't doing things that require they meet that classification to do. The article says that the story has inspired (amongst other things) numerous artworks. It then provides a reference link which, when you follow it, takes you to a deviantart page with, ta-da, hundreds of artworks inspired by the story. The deviantart reference does exactly what it is intended to do, and it doesn't need to be a "wikipedia-quality reliable resource" to do it. If you get hit in the head with a rock, that pretty well establishes that rocks exist, even if the person who threw it at you doesn't work for a geology department. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
deviantART was merely an example of something you can log on and instantly post something. I was not talking about the use of it in the article. Twoflower88 (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does, however, have a place for notable [[9]] fanfiction. 64.126.161.222 (talk) 08:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And Fallout Equestria is far, far from notable. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what? Because you don't like it? Because you don't like the Fallout games, maybe? What makes Fallout: Equestria "far, far" less notable than Pinjar, Time's Champion, The Enchanted Duplicator and Another Hope? 64.126.161.222 (talk) 09:23, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Based on Wikipedia Policy and guidelines, such as WP:N. It fails most or all of the criteria under the General Notability Guidelines. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, my point is that there is precedent for this article's inclusion on Wikipedia, and your argument is that the article doesn't hold to standards that articles about similar subject matter haven't been regularly subject to anyway? 64.126.161.222 (talk) 09:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Invalid argument - read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Androids101 | Visit me! | talk | contribs 10:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." - read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 64.126.161.222 (talk) 10:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of proof, however, rests on those who advocate keeping the page by demonstrating why WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is being "used correctly" in being "consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. Precedent or no precedent, a reasonable application of WP:N cannot provide the necessary notability for this page. The argument is not that this page should be deleted because people don't like it (which you are attacking quite vigorously, but is still beside the point), but rather that its content is simply not notable. 125.51.213.174 (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The question is - are you using it correctly? What you're basically saying is that we disregard WP:N because some other articles also violate WP:N and yet they are allowed to "stay". This is the point of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Androids101 | Visit me! | talk | contribs 07:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. Listing off "less-notable" fan-fiction articles doesn't help this article, it just points out that those article may warrant deletion as well. Sergecross73 msg me 12:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Нихрена себе тут срач развели — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.34.174.199 (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time's Champion, Fallout: Nuka Break, Another Hope? Not suggesting they should be deleted, but I do think it points out a flaw in your rather biased opinion. --Codepony (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the IP's reasoning is a little off, fan fiction can be mentioned, but it's needs the proper third party coverage in reliable sources, the same thing that has written up and down this page. This is something that is lacking with Fallout Equestria. Your examples are not in the same league. For instance, Time's Champion received coverage from the BBC, a very major third party source, and was even legitimately published as a real book. Sergecross73 msg me 18:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"I do think it points out a flaw in your rather biased opinion."-Look at what you just wrote, and think hard for a second. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.248.70.217 (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How much of an entitlement complex do you need to type that. Seriously. This fanfic is in no way notable, nor does it have any non-biased sources. I hate how internet people always assume that because their fangroup was influenced by a work, the work can be considered highly influential. 38.116.202.11 (talk) 14:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, not notable, not something that requires a wikipedia page. I'm sure that someone could make a page for it on a more appropriate wiki. 38.116.202.11 (talk) 14:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempts at trolling the article itself (such as this: [[10]]) have been logged by Wikipedia and are available for review by the administration. I'm sure they will give the opinions of people who vandalize their wiki all due consideration. 75.87.248.119 (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. The argument presented is not illegitimate. -Rushyo Talk 16:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Vishnuvardhan Project[edit]

Untitled Vishnuvardhan Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL, WP:HAMMER, pure speculation and only sourced to film gossip blogs. CaptainScreebo Parley! 13:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

<--

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

The result was delete. consensus is to delete, primarily WP:CRYSTAL, as notability cannot be established at this time (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Star Drive (4x Game)[edit]

Star Drive (4x Game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL, not getting any hits from VG/RS about this game or its development, not sure it'll be notable even once it's out. CaptainScreebo Parley! 12:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The game has received some attention from press, I don't know how many of them you consider notable or not. Here's some that came up in Google: 1, 2, 3 4 5, 6, 7. It's worth noting also that while an article on Iceberg Interactive is conspicuously absent, Wikipedia does have articles on several recent games published by them: Oil Rush, Armada 2526, Nuclear Dawn, Adam's Venture, and Star Ruler. Totally agree about sources, the article does need them - did find this press release which should help along with some of the other news articles and the website itself. -- Revoranii (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this game has seen alot of attention in the last months, they raised 17 grand for their Kickstarter this January, so i believe the page should stay. -- Reagent9 (talk) 3:55, 10 May 2012 (PST)
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL point 5 – "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements". GILO   A&E⇑ 00:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article has be recreated as StarDrive, with the article under discussion here, Star Drive (4x Game), now redirecting to the new page. The new page does still have the afd notice directing to this page. GILO   A&E⇑ 00:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Eastshire (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 00:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

-->

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

The result was redirect to Once Upon a Forest. JohnCD (talk) 09:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rae Lambert[edit]

Rae Lambert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded with claim of sources on Google News. Weeding out the many, many false positives found only references to the film saying things like "This film, based upon a book by Rae Lambert…" and not saying another word about Rae. I couldn't find anything on this person at all, besides that they wrote the book Once Upon a Forest was based on. No biographical info, nor any proof beyond sales sites that "Mungo" exists. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 12:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of authors by age at publication of breakthrough work[edit]

List of authors by age at publication of breakthrough work (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unencyclopaedic, arbitrary list, which authors, why? for starters. Incoherent, I don't read his stuff but I thought everybody knew Stieg Larsson was dead when his books were published. Doesn't seem to satisfy any of the criteria at Wikipedia:List#List_articles and finally because it appears to be the article creator's whim and nothing more ("created page, because I wanted there to be a list like this"). CaptainScreebo Parley! 12:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - with the understanding that many people voting on this AfD are not familiar with Wikipedia policy, please note that AfD discussions are not a matter of counting votes, but rather of gaining rough consensus based on the weight and appropriateness of policy as it pertains to the article.

As has been noted below, the subject of this article currently fails our standards of notability. Firstly, our general notability guidelines. These state that the subject of the article must have been the subject (in a non-trivial manner) of numerous, independent, secondary sources. The sources currently available on the article are PR pieces from the gentlemen's agency and small obituary notices.

The second objection to the article's inclusion on Wikipedia was that the subject fails our notability guidelines for entertainers. Specifically, this refers to the need for the subject to have had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. This is simply not the case here.

I offer this long closing in the hope that those who are new to Wikipedia will understand the rational behind both the deletion votes and this outcome. However, should anyone have any questions, please do feel free to ask me on my talk page. Should anyone wish to have the article moved to their userspace, they need only ask. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:57, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Bridegroom[edit]

Thomas Bridegroom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

May fail WP:ENT. Article was created by Shanebitneycrone (talk · contribs), who I believe was the now-deceased subject's partner. This video is of relevance to the subjects. See also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Bitney Crone. Pyrrhus16 12:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As an attorney, I can state without hesitation, that this needs to remain intact. His life is not a secret, and the embarrassment of the immediate family does not constitute deletion. Gay and Lesbian persons will soon share equal rights with us all. 20 years ago we many not have believed a black president was a possibility, but our current [black] president is in support of gay marriage. There is no warrent under the stated guidelines that allows for deletion of this and, in fact, deletion would open the gates to discrimination lawsuits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hodge2011 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this is history for the LGBT community. Also Thomas Bridegroom seemed to be a notable person, hosted a TV show on MTV for example. Keverw (talk) 11:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The video circulating about his death has over a million views on Youtube, it's major news now whether or not it would have been significant on its own merits. Binerman (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. The YouTube video is powerful. People are going to keep googling him and coming to Wikipedia to find out more information. 184.32.6.164 (talk) audrhi —Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

<--

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

The result was delete. The consensus was to merge to Thomas Bridegroom, but that article has been deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Bridegroom. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Bitney Crone[edit]

Shane Bitney Crone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

May fail WP:ENT. Article was created by Thbridegroom (talk · contribs), who I believe is the subject's now-deceased partner. This video is of relevance to the subjects. See also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Bridegroom. Pyrrhus16 12:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 00:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

-->

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G7, author's request. The article has been withdrawn by the only significant contributor.(I would however not suggest reposting.after the Declaration, unless there's some truly independent reliable substantial press coverage DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Larusia[edit]

Larusia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional subject. No sources external to the creator that I could find. Syrthiss (talk) 12:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Unsourced BLP Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reda Hafez[edit]

Reda Hafez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced BLP. I tagged it as such but the tags got removed. Links in the article are not related to the subject directly: they are either self-published or links to forums or homepages that do not mention the subject. Abanima (talk) 10:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, in case the community agree that this article should be deleted, please consider also its clones on creator's personal and talk pages.--Abanima (talk) 10:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tango multitouch suite[edit]

Tango multitouch suite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unfortunately, I was unable to find enough reliable coverage for this suite. While I think that it may be a good idea and a good product, there just isn't enough coverage for it to warrant an article (at least until there is more coverage). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. I'm withdrawing my nomination, but please add those sources. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Genius Factor Games[edit]

Genius Factor Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As none of its games are notable , I don't see how the company has any notability either. DGG ( talk ) 08:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the author, the company has been around for a significant period of time, has received decent press in the industry (on its releases and the company) although not yet cited (I'm didn't include as I interpreted those as "advertising" (perhaps incorrectly). The company and its titles are on par with other iOS developers who have been listed in Wikipedia for some time, and seem to have met the notable requirement. Specific examples include (I'm sure I can find many others):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appy_Entertainment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monica_(mobile_application) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Toys http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild_Software http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreshGames

Everything included in the article is factual, verifiable, and I believe genuinely notable (specifically Gravity Well (product) and Riese. I am still very new to how Wikipedia works (so please excuse my ignorance on process), is there something specific I can do offer further proofs of notability? --Frontalnugity (talk) 10:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may seem like a reasonable objection, but the fact that similar articles exist is one of the arguments to avoid. It'd be better to focus on finding independent reliable sources. There's a couple of useful Google News results ([13][14]), but I'm not sure that's enough to satisfy the general notability guidelines. Do you have access to any offline sources (newspapers, etc)? DoctorKubla (talk) 11:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the follow-up, and from reading the general guide lines, still believe in earnest that it is notable. Although not the primary argument for notability, I do believe in the interest of fairness that similar articles is still a valid factor in consideration. More specifically though, the company (and President) been cited multiple times in print, newspaper, magazines and other online sources in regards to discussion and opinion on the industry. Specifically (and in addition to the 2 references you noted) the following are independent sources that appeared prominently in print, and can be seen online as well:

[15], [16], [17], [18], [19] (BC Medical Journal), [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], plus many product reviews not listed for reasons I mentioned above.

Should these (if accepted as "notable") be included as cited links in the article? --Frontalnugity (talk) 06:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Opinions are equally divided between keep, merge (although it's not clear where to) and delete, so... no consensus.  Sandstein  13:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Favorite betrayal criterion[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Favorite betrayal criterion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • There is not a single paper in a peer-reviewed journal that mentions this criterion. Markus Schulze 05:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Voting_system_criterion#Favorite_Betrayal, where there is already a direct mention, referenced to the one decent source. As this criterion is demonstrably used many times according to google, this is a plausible search term. This target seems to place this criterion in context with others. I think that the other criteria tend to be bloated with excessively detailed examples - if that stuff doesn't come from reliable sources, it is WP:OR and should be cut back. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Boldly merged to Luna Halo, most notable work. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cary Barlowe[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Cary Barlowe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources added by Colapeninsula right before the first AFD don't cut it. The first only indicates that Cary Barlowe was on a panel of judges; the second says literally nothing about Cary Barlowe, just naming him as the writer of a notable song; and the third is only a chart listing verifiying that said song ("American Honey") went to #1. The statement that he "has had five #1 songs with tobyMac" is inaccurate, as "Made to Love" is the only one of the five that Cory actually co-wrote. His Grammy nomination is a valid assertation of notability, but it was split among four writers, lessening the impact.

I searched and could not find any sources that said anything other than "Cary Barlowe wrote song X". The best I could find was this, which is a primary source. Colapeninsula later said that they could only find directory listings and sheet music. There's no denying that he meets WP:COMPOSER, but WP:COMPOSER is not ironclad; it's entirely possible to write several notable works and/or get a Grammy nomination, but not be notable yourself.

I'm hoping someone will actually !vote this time, as the last AFD was open for three weeks with no !voting whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 07:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure about this since American Honey is not the only song he's known for. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...exactly why I said "...or best sourced work to date.", if some can cite a better anchor destination. Dru of Id (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nadim Kobeissi[edit]

Nadim Kobeissi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person is not notable, there are no major contribution by this individual in the field of computer security. He has only created Cryptocat which is not significant or novel in the information security world. There are no novel publication by the said individual. The individual is known for his self-promotion and the promotion of Cryptocat. It would not surprise me that the individual creating this article, "Chargerqueen", is a close individual or the same person of this article. ManWithTheBlackHat (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: he was profiled by The New York Times last month, [25] so he's clearly notable enough for an entry, on the understanding that he doesn't mind. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, though being (past-tense) friends with Adrian Lamo isn't notable in and of itself.♥GlamRock♥ 13:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was that Nicks used the definite article: "Nadim Kobeissi, the Montreal-based, Lebanese-born hacker ...". It implied to me a degree of notability. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ManWithTheBlackHat (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Frazier[edit]

Justin Frazier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an unsourced BLP about an MMA fighter that fails WP:MMANOT#Fighters. Winning a very minor organization's state championship does not show notability. Papaursa (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 03:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bec Hyatt[edit]

Bec Hyatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Female MMA fighter who has 2 professional fights. She has 1 victory and no title fights. She doesn't meet the level of notability inidicated for male MMA fighters at WP:MMANOT. Article was created by an SPA and fails to give any reason why this fighter is notable. Papaursa (talk) 03:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 03:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Dl2000 (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any coverage that isn't WP:ROUTINE, such as pre and post fight interviews and results. WP:MMANOT#Fighters says fighters need to have fought 3 fights at the highest level to be notable, and she isn't even close to that level. Papaursa (talk) 23:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the snippets you give don't even mention the subject, let alone provide the "significant" coverage required for notability. The coverage all seems to be passing mentions or routine sports coverage. WP:ROUTINE says routine sports coverage doesn't show notability, nor are routine sports matches notable, nor is "coverage of pre-scheduled events, especially when those involved in the event are also promoting it." That's generally been accepted to include pre and post fight interviews and coverage. Papaursa (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 09:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Payphone (disambiguation)[edit]

Payphone (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think there's no need to create a disambiguation page for payphone and the red telephone box and payphone are both the same but different name for the British and American, respectively. j3j3j3...pfH0wHz 03:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nijel Binns[edit]

Nijel Binns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has a lot of puffery and lacks supported claims of notability. Subject has self-published books, an appearance in one movie as a stuntman, and supposedly did research for documentaries. There's no evidence to show he's notable as a martial artist, author, actor, or sculptor. Papaursa (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Les Miller Field[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Les Miller Field (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Miller Field Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a non-notable college ball field.

The only mention in reliable sources is passing mention in obituaries about the field's namesake. Articles that are cited as coverage of the field are either promotional articles issued by FieldTurf (see here) or are articles published by the UIC Flames (see here and here. Bongomatic 02:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the standards afforded the venues of college basketball (a major Division I sport), I argue that Division I college baseball venues are inherently notable. With college basketball venues, MEAC, SWAC, and NEC venues receive little to no coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Yet, no one doubts their notability because they assume Division I college basketball venues to be inherently notable given that they serve a major Division I sport. Again, I am not trying to equate college baseball with college basketball, but I argue that college baseball has a level of notability that affords its venues similar treatment.
Even if you do not accept the premise of the above argument, you've ignored the source from the Chicago Tribune. No, the article does not focus solely on the field, but GNG clearly states that "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Normally, I take issue with editors who hold articles to the standard of the New York Times, but here, coverage (albeit irregular) in a major national newspaper isn't even an issue. Best, Kithira (talk) 12:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Tribune happens to be the local paper, so it's not a "paper of record" in this case—it's reporting on high school baseball. Moreover, only two fact about the field (rather than St Ignatius's use of it) are that it's owned by UIC and that it has artificial turf. This is far less than "more than a trivial mention". Bongomatic 15:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I think the consensus is clear enough after 2 relistings DGG ( talk ) 00:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Burke[edit]

Claire Burke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No assertion of notability per WP:BIO, WP:POLITICIAN or WP:AUTHOR; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources; sole claim to notability appears to be that she married into a notable family. Scopecreep (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Scopecreep (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I too would like to WP:Assume good faith, but the page's creator is not making this easy by doing things like repeatedly removing the notability tag while logged out [26] [27], swapping the notability tag for a redundant cleanup tag [28], removing the failed verification tag from a bogus reference while adding another bogus reference [29], etc. At this point I'm not surprised that you've had no response. Creator has only begun editing today, but one of their first edits was to add a piped link to a template[30], so I suspect that this isn't a novice editor. Scopecreep (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fear you're right, so I won't weep if their work gets deleted. If they won't accept offered help, they're on their own. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Libertarian Party of Canada where the subject is mentioned. The debate has some calls for deletion, others to merge or redirect. On merits, the reference to WP:POLITICIAN is relevant, and the usual criteria for inclusion (statewide or higher office, or significant press coverage) have not been met, election to a local council is insufficient for a Wikipedia biography. Consensus is against a separate article, and is supported by the notability guideline. Since the guideline further suggests redirecting politicians that fall short of our notability guidelines to a relevant article, such as the office sought, I will not call this an outright deletion. In this case, the party he led seems to be the most relevant target. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Serge Brisson[edit]

Jean-Serge Brisson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Has never been elected, lead a party that has never held a seat. West Eddy (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To a municipal office in a municipality that's too small for sitting on its municipal council to count as a point of notability. Just for the record. Bearcat (talk) 03:34, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason Bearcat is only applying this criterion to minor Canadian politicians, so it's clearly not a universal requirement even by their standard. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I'm "only applying this criterion to minor Canadian politicians" is because minor Canadian politicians are the only articles there happen to be at the moment that are both on AFD and inside my range of topical interests and familiarity — a person can only realistically be expected to participate in AFDs that they know about. If there were twenty poorly sourced articles about marginally notable chimney sweeps on AFD which were brought to my attention, then I'd apply the same criterion to poorly sourced articles about marginally notable chimney sweeps. But there aren't. Bearcat (talk) 00:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The core requirement to meet notability rules on Wikipedia is that the person has been the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources. The fact that the article cites one source which mentions Brisson's name once or twice, but isn't really about him in any meaningful way, may certainly be sufficient sourcing to make an article ineligible for speedy — but it is not sufficient sourcing on its own to mean that the article must necessarily be kept in a full AFD discussion. Bearcat (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Figueroa[edit]

Miguel Figueroa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. West Eddy (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created in 2007 and is grandfathered in under the old BLP policy, unless I am mistaken. Carrite (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which means it can't be prodded for being an unsourced or poorly sourced BLP. That doesn't mean it can't still be subjected to a full AFD for being an unsourced or poorly sourced BLP. Bearcat (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Er, last I checked people were allowed to paraphrase policy in an argument, and were not restricted to quoting it verbatim — so the fact that you can't specifically find the exact phrase "sourced to the hilt" in a policy document is irrelevant. The fact is that our notability policy quite explicitly requires that the article topic has been the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources; almost every one of the minor politicians that have been discussed here has an article which quite explicitly fails one or both of those two criteria. And further, I've voted an unqualified keep in every single case where the article had sufficient sourcing in valid sources — and even in the ones where the sourcing wasn't up to scratch, I've still been quite clear that a political party leader's article is eligible to be kept if it gets improved with sufficient coverage in reliable sources. While the ability to point to one article in one reliable source might certainly be sufficient to make an article ineligible for speedy, cursory coverage and/or unreliable sources do not confer sufficient notability to necessarily pass a full AFD if nobody's willing to take the time to spruce it up to a properly keepable standard. So I'll thank you kindly to stop misrepresenting my position.
And just for the record, the sourcing here is not adequate. All three of the cited references, in fact, were dead links which couldn't be salvaged, because they were bare URLs without complete reference information — which means that all three of them had to be removed and the article now contains no properly verifiable sourcing at all (except for one magazine article that's inappropriately placed as a direct external link instead of a proper reference, and which certainly verifies a few basic facts but fails to support most of this article's content at all.) Bearcat (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
—Northamerica1000(talk) 13:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That link is already in the article as a direct external link, and I've already noted in this very discussion the reasons why it's not good enough to be the article's only source citation — just to reiterate, it's certainly better than nothing at all, but it doesn't properly support large chunks of our article's actual content. Bearcat (talk) 05:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I don't have access to the paywalled refs - however, there's no consensus here as to whether the subject has "received significant press coverage" or not. (non-admin closure) -- Trevj (talk) 13:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Vanwoudenberg[edit]

Ed Vanwoudenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Has never been elected, lead a party that has never held a seat. West Eddy (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Wikipedia notability is NOT (as stated in the comment directly above) based upon ..."a question of the quality of sources that are or aren't present in the article...". Rather, the actual notability guideline, per WP:NRVE is that topic notability is based upon the availability of sources, and not upon whether or not they're present in Wikipedia articles. AfD is not cleanup. Perhaps consider working on the article, instead of stating that if other's don't, then it should be redirected. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not my job (or anyone else's) to go out of my way to work on any article that I don't choose of my own free will to work on, based on my familiarity with the topic and my knowledge of where to find valid and useful sources. But that certainly does not mean that I'm not even allowed to have an opinion when an article comes up for discussion that nobody's willing to take the time to improve. Bearcat (talk) 05:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course not; I understand your point and sorry if the presentation of the prose in my comment above reads as dry or judgmental (not the intention). I should have included in my comment above the point of the above !vote not conferring with WP:DEL-REASON, part of Wikipedia's Deletion policy. The article currently has one source, which doesn't make it an unsourced BLP. However, the source just mentions Ed Vanwoudenberg as the Christian Heritage Party's first leader. Importantly though, per WP:NRVE, topic notability is a matter of available sources, and not whether or not they're present in articles (which is distinctly contrary to your rationale above). See also WP:IMPERFECT, Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Er, last I checked people were allowed to paraphrase policy in an argument, and were not restricted to quoting it verbatim — so the fact that you can't specifically find the exact phrase "sourced to the hilt" in a policy document is irrelevant. The fact is that our notability policy quite explicitly requires that the article topic has been the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources; almost every one of the minor politicians that have been discussed here has an article which quite explicitly fails one or both of those two criteria. And further, I've voted an unqualified keep in every single case where the article had sufficient sourcing in valid sources — and even in the ones where the sourcing wasn't up to scratch, I've still been quite clear that a political party leader's article is eligible to be kept if it gets improved with sufficient coverage in reliable sources. While the ability to point to one article in one reliable source might certainly be sufficient to make an article ineligible for speedy, cursory coverage and/or unreliable sources do not confer sufficient notability to necessarily pass a full AFD if nobody's willing to take the time to spruce it up to a properly keepable standard. So I'll thank you kindly to stop misrepresenting my position. Bearcat (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Regarding what to the previous post is an "explicit" "fact", I cannot verify that WP:N has the word "substantial".  The WP:N nutshell says that "notable topics" are "those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time...".  As per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material".
  2. WP:Notability is a guideline, not a "policy".
  3. The word "confer", when used in an AfD discussion, generally has the effect of taking attention away from the idea of notability, since the word means "bestow", and notability is not something that is bestowed.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The difference between "substantial" and "significant" isn't nearly as profound you think it is; the terms are synonymous, actually.
  2. Guidelines are binding in the absence of a compelling reason to ignore or override them. In fact, Wikipedia specifically defines its guidelines as documentation of how policy is actually carried out in practice, which means they operate in tandem with policy and are not ignorable just because they're guidelines.
  3. Notability is not an unconditional entitlement to keep an unsourced or poorly sourced piece of crap, either. It's a judgement on the quality of an article as written, not an inherent characteristic of the topic. Bearcat (talk) 05:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any coverage that would indicate notability per WP:GNG. Does anyone else?West Eddy (talk) 05:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Proofs by assertion are not evidence.  The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
—Northamerica1000(talk) 08:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Perhaps a discussion on the talk page (a redlink as I write) on the possibility of merging this into the party's article could be held. While it may not be desireable to have a "permastub" BLP, there is no consensus to delete this article. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Cavilla[edit]

Charles Cavilla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Has never been elected, lead a party that has never held a seat. West Eddy (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:09, 27 April 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) 00:06, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Er, last I checked people were allowed to paraphrase policy in an argument, and were not restricted to quoting it verbatim — so the fact that you can't specifically find the exact phrase "sourced to the hilt" in a policy document is irrelevant. The fact is that our notability policy quite explicitly requires that the article topic has been the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources; almost every one of the minor politicians that have been discussed here has an article which quite explicitly fails one or both of those two criteria. And further, I've voted an unqualified keep in every single case where the article had sufficient sourcing in valid sources — and even in the ones where the sourcing wasn't up to scratch, I've still been quite clear that a political party leader's article is eligible to be kept if it gets improved with sufficient coverage in reliable sources. While the ability to point to one article in one reliable source might certainly be sufficient to make an article ineligible for speedy, cursory coverage and/or unreliable sources do not confer sufficient notability to necessarily pass a full AFD if nobody's willing to take the time to spruce it up to a properly keepable standard. So I'll thank you kindly to stop misrepresenting my position. Bearcat (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine as long as it actually happens. The problem with such rationales is that it often doesn't, with the result that we end up keeping articles that still stay looking like this — which is why there needs to be a hard deadline beyond which they get redirected to the party if the necessary improvement doesn't actually show up pronto. Bearcat (talk) 04:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please read WP:NRVE, which delineates that topic notability is not based upon whether or not sources are in articles, it's based upon the availability of sources. See also: WP:IMPERFECT, Wikipdia is a work in progress: perfection is not required. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There has to be an actual hard deadline beyond which an article gets canned if nobody's willing to actually take the time to actually improve it, because otherwise there's no impetus for anyone to actually do the necessary work. This article is now seven years old and it's still really, really bad — and it's never going to get any better if we don't light a fire under people's butts. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There's no policy or guideline about Wikipedia content as stated above whatsoever. See also WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, where it's stated (in part), "Wikipedia is a volunteer community, and does not require the Wikipedians to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians." Northamerica1000(talk) 06:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't say that was policy speaking — I said that's how we need to actually treat these matters if we value the idea of Wikipedia ever actually being a good source of comprehensive content about the topics we write about, which is a very different thing. There's no real value in keeping an article on the basis that it can be improved, if it never actually does get improved. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Blaquière[edit]

Jean Blaquière (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Has never been elected, lead a party that has never held a seat. West Eddy (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 23:03, 27 April 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, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Er, last I checked people were allowed to paraphrase policy in an argument, and were not restricted to quoting it verbatim — so the fact that you can't specifically find the exact phrase "sourced to the hilt" in a policy document is irrelevant. The fact is that our notability policy quite explicitly requires that the article topic has been the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources; almost every one of the minor politicians that have been discussed here has an article which quite explicitly fails one or both of those two criteria. And further, I've voted an unqualified keep in every single case where the article had sufficient sourcing in valid sources — and even in the ones where the sourcing wasn't up to scratch, I've still been quite clear that a political party leader's article is eligible to be kept if it gets improved with sufficient coverage in reliable sources. While the ability to point to one article in one reliable source might certainly be sufficient to make an article ineligible for speedy, cursory coverage and/or unreliable sources do not confer sufficient notability to necessarily pass a full AFD if nobody's willing to take the time to spruce it up to a properly keepable standard. So I'll thank you kindly to stop misrepresenting my position. Bearcat (talk) 00:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Hnatiuk[edit]

Jim Hnatiuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Has never been elected, leads a party that has never held a seat. West Eddy (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:01, 27 April 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) 00:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Er, last I checked people were allowed to paraphrase policy in an argument, and were not restricted to quoting it verbatim — so the fact that you can't specifically find the exact phrase "sourced to the hilt" in a policy document is irrelevant. The fact is that our notability policy quite explicitly requires that the article topic has been the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources; almost every one of the minor politicians that have been discussed here has an article which quite explicitly fails one or both of those two criteria. And further, I've voted an unqualified keep in every single case where the article had sufficient sourcing in valid sources — and even in the ones where the sourcing wasn't up to scratch, I've still been quite clear that a political party leader's article is eligible to be kept if it gets improved with sufficient coverage in reliable sources. While the ability to point to one article in one reliable source might certainly be sufficient to make an article ineligible for speedy, cursory coverage and/or unreliable sources do not confer sufficient notability to necessarily pass a full AFD if nobody's willing to take the time to spruce it up to a properly keepable standard. So I'll thank you kindly to stop misrepresenting my position. Bearcat (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, if they're properly sourced. Bearcat (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Webb (Canada)[edit]

Jim Webb (Canada) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. West Eddy (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I got a note because, apparently, I created this page 7 years ago. When I got the note, I was like "who the hell is Jim Webb" so on those grounds, I will not oppose any deletion. Nickjbor (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:32, 27 April 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) 00:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Er, last I checked people were allowed to paraphrase policy in an argument, and were not restricted to quoting it verbatim — so the fact that you can't specifically find the exact phrase "sourced to the hilt" in a policy document is irrelevant. The fact is that our notability policy quite explicitly requires that the article topic has been the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources; almost every one of the minor politicians that have been discussed here has an article which quite explicitly fails one or both of those two criteria. And further, I've voted an unqualified keep in every single case where the article had sufficient sourcing in valid sources — and even in the ones where the sourcing wasn't up to scratch, I've still been quite clear that a political party leader's article is eligible to be kept if it gets improved with sufficient coverage in reliable sources. While the ability to point to one article in one reliable source might certainly be sufficient to make an article ineligible for speedy, cursory coverage and/or unreliable sources do not confer sufficient notability to necessarily pass a full AFD if nobody's willing to take the time to spruce it up to a properly keepable standard. So I'll thank you kindly to stop misrepresenting my position. Bearcat (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, if they're properly sourced. Bearcat (talk) 00:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. In view of the low participation, this is a WP:SOFTDELETE; as with a PROD, the article will be restored on request at WP:REFUND, but may then be renominated. JohnCD (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heriberto Mora[edit]

Heriberto Mora (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think this is a notable artist... The article is single-sourced to artnexus.com, which I can't find any evidence of having editorial oversight... it seems more like a gallery catalog. The article claims that his work is hung all over the place, but I can't find any verification of it. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 22:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:13, 27 April 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) 00:30, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No clear agreement, but it does appear the writer made the NYT bestseller list, so while neither position gained clear traction here, it seems appropriate to apply the usual default to keep. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lora Leigh[edit]

Lora Leigh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Claims to be a best-selling NYT author, which I can not authenticate; gives no references; I am unable to establish general notability. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 20:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I second this, as I've come across an entire spate of poorly sourced non-notable author pages and promotional pages very recently, enough that it's taken me in to the uncharted realms of BLP-patrol, something I've tried to avoid in the past for obvious reasons (i.e. Youreallycan). St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 03:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, when it's a notable author and restricted to books that have their own pages or notable series (such as Stephen King's Dark Tower), it's not - but the entirety of the article, literally more than 90% of the text, is a list of non-notable books. Indeed, some people, in contravention of WP:NOTABILITY, believe that an author's notability rubs off on all of their works; except for a very, very few (Stephen King, JRR Tolkien, JK Rowling, Stephanie Meyer, etc. etc.) who have become true celebrities in their own right, it's not the case. St John Chrysostom Δόξατω Θεώ 03:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:17, 27 April 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) 00:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
not so. One very strong source is enough, and it isn't the article in the NYT in any case, it's the verified inclusion in the list of NYT bestsellers, which fact is enough for notability . DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 09:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Felipe[edit]

Alejandro Felipe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Actor has only had bit parts. Not notable per WP:NACTOR. West Eddy (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actor starred in main role of La viuda de Blanco in 100 episodes, which is how many episodes it showed between 2006-2007.--Mjs1991 (talk) 07:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 09:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Azar[edit]

Betty Azar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find any evidence that Azar passes any one of the multiple SNGs that might apply to her (academic, author, etc.). Nolelover Talk·Contribs 15:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:43, 27 April 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) 01:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn now that he has been selected to First All-Star team. -DJSasso (talk) 11:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sgarbossa[edit]

Michael Sgarbossa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable junior player who fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. Can be recreated when/if he meets NHOCKEY or otherwise achieves notability. Was deprodded with the comment that leading scorer meets nhockey which is not true. Per nhockey he must be one of the top 10 scorers in lead history, not just a single season. DJSasso (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 12:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Routine coverage and his team bio? Not really significant coverage. -DJSasso (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with DJSasso, except maybe the 3rd source. The first two are just game summaries and the last is not independent (nor is it significant, as it is basically just the player stats). I think the article about earning a spot on Team OHL counts for something towards meeting notability, but in itself (or even if there was one other article of similar length/quality) hardly represents "significant coverage." Rlendog (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 27 April 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, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete without prejudice. Can be recreated or restored upon request at WP:REFUND. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robby Mignardi[edit]

Robby Mignardi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable junior player who has yet to meet WP:NHOCKEY. Was prodded and the prod was removed stating that playoff MVP met NHOCKEY but all player awards minus First-All Star Team were removed from the qualifications to meet NHOCKEY. Can be recreated when/if he meets WP:NHOCKEY. DJSasso (talk) 12:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:32, 27 April 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, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pulse Recording[edit]

Pulse Recording (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advert for company. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources, most current sources do not verify claims and none provide significant independent coverage of Pulse Recording. Notability is not inherited from clients. Current article is a textbook example of using bombardment to mask the lack of notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:24, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a perfect example of a wiki user being completely uninformed about the music industry and making judgments about the level to which an award shall be judged. It is the publishing company that is presented with these type of awards, which are attributed to a client's work. The ASCAP and Broadcast Music, Inc. awards recognize songwriters, and in the songwriting world (not the performing and selling of music world) these ARE major awards (Jpoindex (talk) 03:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]
  • source 1 (Universalmusic.com) is a press release
  • 2 is Google Maps
  • 3 is the company's own site
  • 4 (ASCAP), 5 (LA Weekly), and 6 (Rolling Stone) don't mention Pulse Recording
  • 7 (ASCAP) confirms that a song was published by Check Your Pulse (and another company) without any coverage - it's just a list
  • 8 (losangeles.citysearch.com) is a listing in a directory, much like the Google Maps listing;
  • 9 (Downtown Music Publishing), 10 (Music Connection), and 11 (MV Remix) are press releases;
  • 12 (ASCAP) is the same as 7 and 13 (ASCAP) is the same as 4
  • 14 (BMI) doesn't mention Pulse Recording.
Even if the company represents people who have produced or written for Lady Gaga, U2, Britney, JLo, etc., as the article asserts (without sources), notability is not inherited. There's no evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, therefore notability has not been established. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pulse Recording is the parent company, registered business headquarters, and trademark of Check Your Pulse Publishing. In simply trying to understand Wikipedia's notability criteria (with the hope of improving this article accordingly) have the other companies referenced E1 Music Publishing and Water Music Publishing passed the notability test? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpoindex (talk • contribs) 21:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From my quick look at those two, IMO no they haven't. I may nominate them later. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 2 added from UBM plc for further news related to Pulse Recording
  • Management section has been removed all together to avoid the suggestion that Pulse Recording is assuming its notability
  • Awards section indicates more awards that Pulse Recording/Check Your Pulse Publishing was honored with at the 2012 BMI Pop Awards on May 15th, 2012
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stewart McPherson (geographer)[edit]

Stewart McPherson (geographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PROF/WP:ACADEMIC. The subject has only 5 peer reviewed papers according to GScholar, and has a very low h-index of 4 as per citations-gadget. The article mentions a discovery made with Alastair Robinson, but the paper in which they described the discovery has only 10 citations to be considered an important one. Finally the primary author of the article User:Jeljen has contributed mainly to articles related to Alastair Robinson and the subject, which suggests a possible COI. Propose to delete. Westeros91 (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And from a recent paper I was just reading: "For the reconstruction of relative peristome width, the literature data from McPherson (2009) were used because only this data set comprised all species included in the phylogeny." mgiganteus1 (talk) 03:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of IT companies in Hyderabad[edit]

List of IT companies in Hyderabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

What's the point of this article? It is a list of global companies with supposedly a presence in the city. No sources to confirm any of them. These global companies have a presence in many cities in many countries. And the point is? I left a notice in the article's talk page a month ago asking for comments before the AfD. No takers. I say it serves no purpose. Delete. Alexf(talk) 00:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or merge with List of IT companies in India. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources can be found. Maybe not a single source like a directory. But individual homepages would have sources. (Added one for Accenture.) These cities, Hyd, B'lore, Noida, etc. are known as IT hubs globally. They are known as places where all work outsourced goes. Ofcourse there is an IT company in every town. But maybe we can define the list in a better manner to get just limited enteries. Maybe on turnover (i doubt such info is available) or employee strength (that is bit possible). §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The list doesn't claim that these offices are India head offices. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So that's the reason I had claimed that the list doesn't looks encyclopedic. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 11:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That makes it unsuitable for a category - the categories are only for companies' main locations such as head offices or registered offices. A list also allows additional information such as origin. Peter E. James (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, as renamed to Glove problem. I have deleted the original title as an implausible redirect, having replaced the only significant link to it in the List of mathematics articles. JohnCD (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Safe sex makespan[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Safe sex makespan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completing nomination for User:Lawikila. On the merits, I have no opinion. The original rationale, posted at the article's talk page, is copied verbatim below. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No modification to the article have been made. Google scholar does not return any result for "safe sex makespan". One may grant that the problem is a legit OR problem, but if it has not a single hit on google scholar, possibly does not belong here. Though a simple google search of 'makespan' brings one here. The concept of 'makespan' is better explained in Job Shop Scheduling. I have nominated the article for deletion again. --Lawikila (talk) 04:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I've moved the article to Glove problem.  --Lambiam 23:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Wikipedians: "OR" here means "Operations Research", not anything in wikijargon... Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandra Gianatti[edit]

Alessandra Gianatti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per OTRS ticket 2012050210009563, the subject of this article is requesting it be deleted for privacy reasons. The subject wrote: "The information about me are completely wrong and false." Tiptoety talk 17:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Completely? What's about the given references? I can't get her, sorry.--Gamsbart (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, she is requesting it be completely deleted. Tiptoety talk 22:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don's see, what should be "completely wrong and false". keep--188.174.2.74 (talk) 04:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Given to the Wild. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel to Follow[edit]

Feel to Follow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This track is not independently notable despite being the product of a notable band. Salimfadhley (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Aditya[edit]

Salman Aditya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, 2010#District 4. There is no consensus, yet, that candidates from major parties should be exempt from WP:POLITICIAN (and there would be problems of definition in countries where the distinction between major and minor parties is less clear-cut than in the US). JohnCD (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Rothfus[edit]

Keith Rothfus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet notability criteria per WP:POLITICIAN Arbor8 (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 27 April 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, →Bmusician 01:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Στc. 00:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zakiya Cox[edit]

Zakiya Cox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this singer. The Talented Teens awards aren't verified by the appropriate site before 1996, and I can't find a news article mentioning the award. The rest of what I found were self-published sources and Wikimirrors. Additional sources welcomed, as always. joe deckertalk to me 00:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slither (software)[edit]

Slither (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is an "application" with no true notability. According to the article, it tracks worms in a laboratory environment, but I do not see notability asserted. Does not pass WP:GNG. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Στc. 00:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alastair Robinson[edit]

Alastair Robinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:PROF/WP:ACADEMIC. The subject has only 8 peer reviewed papers according to GScholar, and has a very low h-index of 5 as per citations-gadget. Although the article mentions a discovery made by Robinson et. al., the paper in which they described the discovery has only 10 citations to be considered an important one. The subject is the brother of actress Zuleikha Robinson, but since notability is not inherited this isn't a good reason to keep the article. Finally, the primary author of the article User:Jeljen has contributed mainly to articles related to the subject, which suggests a possible COI. Propose to delete. Westeros91 (talk) 00:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Artifacturing[edit]

Artifacturing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a neologism, or at least a rarely used term for the more common rapid prototyping and 3D printing.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 10:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  05:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Στc. 00:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was this AFD smells. If somebody wishes to renominate this in good faith then be my guest. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Fol[edit]

Alexandra Fol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Στc. 00:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am with withdrawing from participating in this AfD, as I suspect that it is being conducted in bad faith by the nominator--suspected sock puppetry. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 08:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Parodius (series). Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Little Pirates[edit]

Little Pirates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable game. It's been speedied (and denied because its a software product not eligible for speedy). It's been prodded (and that was removed by the author without explanation). So let's try AFD. Really, this is just another brand of Japanese slot machine. No indications of notability in the article or to be found elsewhere. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. However, I do agree that not every episode of a notable TV series should have a standalone article so I recommend a merge discussion be started on the main article's talk page or at one of the relevant wikiprojects. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky (Parks and Recreation)[edit]

Lucky (Parks and Recreation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable individual episode. all plot. no refs. no critique Gaijin42 (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with your criticisms, but don't think the article should be deleted, simply revised. JPX7 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I'm aware of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. But in this case, deletion of this one article would be so bizarrely arbitrary -- it's different from saying, "Oh, we should keep this bad article about a movie, because there are lots of other bad articles about movies". This topic is part of a finite set of dozens of topics, virtually all of which have exactly the same level of notability and whose articles would be subject to the exact same complaints. It just makes no sense to delete this one without deleting all the others; the result would be a long list of episodes where every single one is linked to an article except for some reason, the eighteenth episode of the fourth season. ("Why doesn't that one have an article?" "It was deleted." "Was it especially bad, or something?" "No, it was exactly like every other article that's still here.") If you don't see that as ridiculous, I'm not going to be able to convince you why it is. But fine, here's another argument: it's notable as the subject of coverage and analysis from multiple reliable sources, as a Google search for "lucky parks and recreation review" shows. Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the otherstuff - I was using this episode as a trial balloon, to see the outcome to probably propose the deletion of the bulk of the other episodes as well, so common outcome I think does not apply, as the rationale used here will be echoed on other pages. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's sort of the point - we're saying that WP:COMMONSENSE says that keeping these should be the common outcome. If you'd like to do a few more (the worst ones you can find, please), by all means go ahead. Let's see if consensus is consistent. If it is, we'll consider it the beginnings of a common outcome, yeah? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This episode, as well as almost all of the episodes for this show completly fail WP:EPISODE WP:GNG etc. WP:COMMON sense says we should follow the guidelines which are very clear about content which does not belong on wikipedia. WP:COMMON is not an appeal to keep because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As for finding the worst examples, I think that is somewhat of a misdirection per my argument above, but in this case, it is pretty easy, since they are literally an entire collection of unsourced all-plot. Campaign_Shake-Up, Sweet_Sixteen_(Parks_and_Recreation), Dave_Returns etc. The closest any of the articles gets to anything useful is a regurgitation of nielson ratings, and one line snips from WP:ROUTINE reviewers that review every episode of every tv show - such coverage does not show notability of individual episodes, unless we are to dramatically change the rules of WP:ROUTINE - in which case I fear the flood of articles on every episode, every song, every birth/death/wedding, every high school sporting event, etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:15, 16 May 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.
More