< 24 May 26 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 keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution at Sea Saga[edit]

Revolution at Sea Saga (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 no indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:BKCRIT, not can I find any evidence of such notability. If anyone can provide content and references demonstrating notability I would support keeping it (or recreating it in the future). West Eddy (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:20, 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) 23:13, 19 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 23:16, 25 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 Revolution at Sea saga. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By Force of Arms[edit]

By Force of Arms (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 no indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:BKCRIT, not can I find any evidence of such notability. If anyone can provide content and references demonstrating notability I would support keeping it (or recreating it in the future). West Eddy (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:23, 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) 23:12, 19 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 23:16, 25 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) 01:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Madre Grande Monastery[edit]

Madre Grande Monastery (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 Madre Grande Monastery is closed, and with this article being extremely short, borderlining on being a stub, I would assume it is not likely to be open to expansion any time soon, since no further data on the place is going to be available. For this reason, I submit for deletion, in that the likelihood of making a working article from this is going to be practically nil. Cat in the Hat | To the Thinga-ma-jigger | Whistle for Things 1 and 2 00:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 04:22, 13 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 18:00, 19 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 23:13, 25 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) 01:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shit You Weren't Supposed To Hear[edit]

Shit You Weren't Supposed To Hear (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's absolutely no notably given on the article. When doing a quick search on Google, nothing but blogs pop up. Devin (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 26 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  06:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Hills Municipal Authority[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable municipal authority. Not sure how encyclopedic it is to list every agency in every town and couty. Ridernyc (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just to clarify: This organization is a sewage treatment authority that operates a municipal sewage system and two sewage treatment plants in Cambria County, Pennsylvania. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:09, 13 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) 22:51, 19 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:58, 25 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) 02:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

European Moulded Fibre Association[edit]

European Moulded Fibre Association (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 found no coverage. Non-notable organization. SL93 (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. A bit iffy (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:54, 25 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) 03:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Water Music Publishing[edit]

Water Music Publishing (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. Other than their catalog/shop links most current sources do not verify claims. None provide significant independent coverage of Water Music Publishing. Article claims awards for the company that are their clients awards. Notability is not inherited from clients. Current article is a textbook example of using bombardment to mask the lack of notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:48, 25 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'm sorry MQS but the consensus is that the sources you provided are only trivial mentions Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney L'amour[edit]

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

Contested PROD. References were added, but none to RS. Fails WP:ENT. Can find no significant independent sources to prove notability. Michitaro (talk) 03:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 06:53, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to show notability NealeFamily (talk) 03:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The publications themselves may be reliable, but the sources themselves are trivial. I had seen these before nominating for AfD. The first is merely an announcement (which is defined as trivial in the case of WP:MUSBIO), and the remaining ones only give her name in a list of other names, saying nothing about how she is notable. Michitaro (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 22:47, 25 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 Pete_Hoekstra#Super_Bowl_ad_controversy. Effectively a merge, since the material is already extensively covered in the target article. Black Kite (talk) 10:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Hoekstra 2012 Superbowl advertisement in Michigan[edit]

Pete Hoekstra 2012 Superbowl advertisement in Michigan (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 WP:COATRACK article. Also WP:NOTNEWS. RunningOnBrains(talk) 22:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. RunningOnBrains(talk) 22:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article was hot button event after the 2012 Superbowl. Hoekstra changed his advertising technique after that ad received poor publicity. Halftime in America is also a 2012 Superbowl advertisement, and has an article about it. At a minimum, the article should be merged with Pete Hoekstra. There is no evidence provided here that the article meets WP:COATRACK and/or WP:NOTNEWS.--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem with "merge" is that this issue is already covered in its entirety at Pete Hoekstra (as it should be IMO) and it would leave an implausible redirect. This is a small incident in this politician's career. All coverage was within a 2 week window following the controversy; this is well within the purview of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER (just noticed the depreciated redirect). And it does qualify as a WP:COATRACK article; it's a whole 3 sentences on the supposed subject of the article and more than 2 paragraphs on the criticism of Pete Hoekstra and company. Sorry, it's a nicely written article, but it's just not notable on its own, hence why I'm here. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 01:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this is a COATRACK article, the issue then becomes whether or not the advertisement deserves a one line article on Wikipedia acknowledging that it exists. The coatrack issue can be resolved by deleting the "Criticism" and "Aftermath" sections, IF they do indeed need to be deleted.--Jax 0677 (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's an implausible redirect term, but redirects are cheap. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why does Halftime in America get its own article if this does not?--Jax 0677 (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • True, though even with cheap redirects I question the usefullness of this as a search term. However, I suppose there could be some value to keyword searches, so I wouldn't really be opposed to a redirect.--Kubigula (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Whelan (football)[edit]

Paul Whelan (football) (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)

PROD contested by Paw sfc (talk · contribs). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:33, 25 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?) 06:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Canadian English Language Proficiency Index Program[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article is about a test, with no indication of notability. No reliable sources provided, none found. TNXMan 20:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Edited to add: quick search online shows that the USA also has a language proficiency test of some sort for immigrants. I stand corrected on that point!OttawaAC (talk) 03:01, 30 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. At any rate not delete; there is an inconclusive discussion about a possible rename or merger, but with all the knowledgeable people here I think that can be further worked out on the talk page if necessary.  Sandstein  06:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baroness of Douglas[edit]

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

Non-notable, possibly a hoax.

This article in unreferenced, and I can find no external evidence of its existence. There is nothing on Google Books or Google Scholar or Google News (including the archives). A general Google search throws up only unreliable sources such as user-generated genealogy sites.

Unless there is evidence in reliable sources that this title existed, then it fails WP:GNG and we should not have an article about it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

−

snowball keep. I agree sourcing in the article is weak now, but several citations can be found here: [11] - for example: A TOUR THROUGH THE ISLE OF MAN, TO WHICH IS SUBJOINED A Review of the Manks History; BY DAVID ROBERTSON, ESQ. I also note that it is possible this deletion is motivated by a politically-charged debated happening around Category:Nobility of the British Isles; I suggest other editors take that into account before considering deletion. Now 2 separate sources found with 2 minutes of searching. --KarlB (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.
Yeah, it's snowing here. Also, I suggest you read what WP:POINT says. Nominating and article for deletion without doing a few basic searches because its very existence threatens a category theory you have is the very definition of disrupting wikipedia to make a point. There are now 3 separate books that reference the Baroness. I suggest a speedy, snowy close. --KarlB (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Karl, if you read the nomination, you would see that the searches I did (per WP:BEFORE) are linked above.
And you clearly still haven't read WP:SNOW. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Isle of Man and WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage have been notified. I have also notified all 3 other contributors to the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first of those refs is to a passing mention in a travel book on Google Book, which fails WP:GNG.
I am surprised by the rapidity of KarlB's unearthing of mentions in the other books, and would like to verify what they say. Karl, please can you explain where you read the books? In print, or somewhere online that you can link to? Either way in assessing notability, we need to see exactly what those books say about the topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)::::Allow me to then provide some suggestions on searches. A simple google search of a single string is, for a topic like this one, generally not sufficient. Given that you have 200,000 edits, I know you are capable of great contributions to the wiki, and I'm sure you are aware that a search of google news for a Baroness that went extinct many years ago is a rather silly prospect. I suggest you do the honorable thing, and withdraw this nomination, especially given the sources already found.--KarlB (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment now 4 refs. The Prioress of Douglas clearly exists, the prioress of douglas existed, and four separate books found in the space of 10 minutes mention the baroness. I have read WP:SNOW, and it says there isn't a need to run a full process if there isn't a snowball's chance in hell. I think given the copious references already provided, your initial claims of hoax are found wanting.--KarlB (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "In which court the Bishop of Mann was called to come to doe his Faith and Fealtie unto the Lord, as the Law asketh, and to shew by what Claime he houldeth his Lands and tenements within the Lordship of Mann, the which came and did his Faith and Fealtie to the Lord. The Abbott also of Rushe and the Priors of Douglas, were called to doe their Feltie, and to shew their Claimes of their Houldings, Lands and Tenements, within the Lordship of Man; the which came and did their Feltie to the Lord."
  2. "The Manx barons were eight in number: (1) Bishop of Sodor and Man; (2) Abbot of Rushen; (3) Prior of Douglas; (4) Baron of St. Trinian's; (5) Abbot of Furness; (6) Abbot of Bangor and Saball; (7) Prior of St. Bede;s, in Copeland; and (8)) Prior of Whithorne or the candida Casa in Galloway. The Prioros of Beemakin and Arbory are never mentioned in the list of barons; but the priorress of teh Nunnery of St. Bridget is said to have had baronial rights. All of these are ecclesiastical barons, excep Saball and St. Trinian;s, and an evidence of the ambition and high standing in society of the church in the middle ages. All, doubtless, held grants of land in the Island though now lost sight of; but many of them having been forfeited reverted to the sovereign and constitute the abbey lands of the present day."
  3. "The prioress of Douglas was anciently a baroness of the isle. Her person was sacred; her authority dignified; her revenue extensive; and her privileges important. She held courts in her own name; and from the Lord's court she frequently demanded her vassals, and tried them by a jury of her own tenants. When such was her temporal authority, it may be presumed of her spiritual jurisdiction that "here perchance a tyrant-abbeys reigned who rul'd the cloister with an iron-rod" --KarlB (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Would you mind sharing what led you to be unconvinced about notability? I have tried to provide multiple references in multiple independent sources, plus confirmation that she was basically second in command to the sovereign. Again, given that there isn't as much "Isle of Man" history as there is for the UK, I still don't see how this title is any less notable than some of the hundreds of UK Barons we have. --KarlB (talk) 07:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the print sources, but I don't think the contents of the online sources amount to "significant coverage". There isn't enough information available for the article to expand beyond a stub, and this information would sit comfortably in The Nunnery, Douglas#Monastic era. DoctorKubla (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand your POV. however, I do ask that you consider that in this case, this is a noble title, that we know exists, in a country that has a 1000 year history. But, it's a small country, so there isn't much written online about it - you may have to go to the Isle of Man itself to dig up original paper records. Thus, the fact that there isn't a preponderance of online sources should not be surprising, and there isn't a requirement in wikipedia for sources to be online. Most contemporary sources mentioning the baroness would be from ~13-15th centuries. But just in case it might change your mind, here are a few others for your consideration:Link to a plate showing her coat of arms; another mention in a history book; Legal records from 1417/1418 - two mentions of the prioress another book ref I'd ask again that you kindly reconsider your vote; the subject is clearly notable, being referenced in at least a dozen different history books, all found within a day, and the title was clearly an important post in the time, as attested. We keep NFL players who have played one game, so I'm a bit confused we're having a discussion about a historical title referenced multiple times in independent reliable sources. --KarlB (talk) 15:06, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Karl, your post above includes 4 refs (Link to a plate showing her coat of arms; [13], Legal records from 1417/1418, [14]), but none of them mentions the word "baroness". Why do you claim that those refs are evidence of the notability of the title "Baroness of Douglas"????? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The prioress was a baroness. Different sources use different names to refer to her. --KarlB (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And per the overwhelming evidence of the sources so far, she was known as the "Prioress of Douglas". Your claim above about "a historical title referenced multiple times in independent reliable sources" is not applicable to the title "Baroness of Douglas". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if you'd like to withdraw this AfD and rename the article, that is something worth considering, with a redirect. Thanks!--KarlB (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. The evidence so far clearly does not support the existence of a standalone article under the title "Baroness of Douglas". One possible solution is a rename, but a better solution would be a merger to The Nunnery, Douglas, and I would prefer that decision to be made here than to have to reopen another discussion. At this point, merger is probably a better solution than deletion, so that the disjointed snippets you have assembled into the page can provide some pointers for other editors (per WP:PRESERVE).
In any case, the fact that other editors have now !voted to merge or delete means that it is no longer open to me to withdraw the nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's a whole lot of WP:SYN and WP:OR. Multiple, independent sources call these people barons. What kind of barons they are is really up to the sources to determine, and until someone finds such sources, we should just keep calling them 'Barons', and not make up hypotheses... also, since you seem to be having so much trouble finding sources, allow me to provide you a link: [19]. --KarlB (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another source for the Baronies of the Isle of Man. [20] --KarlB (talk) 02:40, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense: I offered no SYN, and no OR.
I did not "make up hypotheses". I asked questions, which the sources so far do not come anywhere answering. But you are clearly not interested in a genuine discussion, so I will leave you to google away. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest looking up WP:OR. You are claiming that this baroness, who is attested to be a baroness in multiple independent sources (which for some reason you continue to not be able to find!), is perhaps not really a baroness at all. That is WP:OR. If you find an article somewhere that says "The Baroness of douglas was just a pretend title, she wasn't really nobility, etc" then I can see your point. Until then, it's just idle speculation on your part. From everything I've read, it appears it was ex-officio. You ask a lot of questions about the nature of this baroness, but none of them are that relevant - because the sources we have say the prioress was baroness. Until other sources come to light challenging that, let's just move on. --KarlB (talk) 06:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Read what I actually wrote. I did not say that she "is perhaps not really a baroness at all". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Your arguments are so weak and tendentious I just don't know what to do. This is what you said:

"described in some sources as "barons" or "baronesses". However, that terminology is not as straightforward as it appears"; "the term had a much wider usage in the middle ages, when it extended far beyond those who would now be considered "nobility".;"So, a lot of caution is needed when looking looking at the usage in medieval societies ... particularly when the term is linked to religious office.";"However, evidence presented here for the use of the titles "Baron" and "Baroness" is very weak"

So yes, when you add all that up, that suggests to me that you are casting doubt on whether the baroness was a baroness. Now, there may be questions as to what *kind* of baroness she was - was she a feudal baroness, or was it a hereditary title, or was it given to her by St. Patrick himself - but that is a very different question of the question for this AfD - which is, did the title exist. Your casting of doubt on this is mostly based on what seems to be extremely sloppy research or inability to use google books search - for example, you initially nominated this as a hoax. Then you say above that you can only find two sources that reference the baroness. Please go back to google and check again. I've given at least 5 separate books.--KarlB (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some points[edit]

If Karl wants to participate in this discussion, it he should discuss the AFD issue, and stop trying to make creative interpretations of my words. For example, I am not "casting doubt on whether the baroness was a baroness"; I am questioning the nature of the title. Accusing me of "inability to use google books search" is pure bitchiness: the fact is that Google Books does not record use of the phrase "Baroness of Douglas", which is the current title of the article. Quit the sniping.

The question for AfD is not "did the title exist"; plenty of things which exist do not meet the inclusion policies (see WP:N). The question for AFD is whether the title is notable enough to have a standalone article. There are secondary questions as to the name of any standalone page, and whether the topic is best covered by a standalone page or as part of another article.

I will summarise what I have seen so far.

  1. There are no hits for "Baroness of Douglas" on Google Books or Google Scholar or Google News (including the archives).
  2. The title "Prioress of Douglas" gets 72 hits on Google Books, and 14 hits on Google Scholar
  3. Per the above, the most widely-used title in reliable sources for the holder of this office is "Prioress of Douglas". Per Wikipedia's naming policy at WP:COMMONNAME, that is the title which should be used if there is to be a standalone article on her.
  4. There is already an article on The Nunnery, Douglas. It is not a long article, and neither is this one. That is why I support DoctorKubla's suggestion above that the two be merged.
  5. Whether the prioress is covered in a standalone article or as part of a merged article, the sources so far say very little about the nature of the title "baron(ess)" in the Isle of Man. The title of Prior for a monastic superior (whether lay or religious) covers a range of meanings, and it is unclear from the sources so far which of the meanings applies here.
  6. The use of the title "baroness" for a prior with temporal powers is very different from the meanings used in the Norman system which survives in England (see baron). Rather than assuming that this title demotes noble status, please reserve judgement until more sources are available. That is why I have expressed concern about adding these titles to List of baronies in the Peerages of the British Isles, because so far there are no sources which say that they should be regarded as part of the Peerage. Maybe they are, maybe they are not, but we need scholarly sources to clarify this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Prioress of Douglas, per BHG above, until more sources come to light. Maintain redirect from Baroness.
Keep: There are enough sources to support that she was a baroness, of which type still TBD. --KarlB (talk) 01:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the original author of the entry, I would rather that this information be listed as a separate section on the history of the priory than be renamed, which would change the emphasis of the entry completely. I would hate to see it deleted entirely, as the site's current occupant gives it some note in the world currently.

My intent in creating the entry was simply to list what the sources I had seen indicated was a civil title, distinct from the religious office the prioress occupied. This was significant to me as the holder would always be a woman, which was not all that common, even on the European continent.

It is also important to remember that the prioress would not have the civil powers she did under canon law. While an abbess (or abbot) might have such powers on the continent, prioresses (and priors), who hold a lesser title within the Church, normally did not have the standing either in the Church or in society to have such powers and be considered a civil Lady or Lord. Thus the secular powers granted this prioress are worth enumerating separately, as out of course with the normal hierarchical system in Europe as a whole.

Since this seems not to have been the situation on the Isle of Man, that is a fact worthy of note in European ecclesiastical and secular history, as seen from an outsider.Daniel the Monk (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Actually that is a convincing argument - that this was a separate title distinct from the religious office. I've changed my vote back to keep accordingly. --KarlB (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Daniel, it is a pity that when you created the article, you did not list the sources which you had seen. That would have helped clarify the provenance of the article, and saved me from wondering if it was a hoax.
All of the sources which I have seen in the course of this discussion indicate that the two titles ("Prioress" and "Baroness") were always combined in the same person. There is therefore no need for two articles on the same topic.
AFAICS, the title of "Baroness" was an ex-officio title of the person selected as Prioress. Please correct me if you have sources which point the other way, but many of the refs explicitly using a phrasing such as "The Prioress of Douglas was also a Baroness".
I agree that the civil powers are worth enumerating, and I agree with your point that they are significant as an exception to the European norm. However, I can still see no reason to continue to have separate articles on the priory and its head. Both are currently short, and unless a significant quantity of new material is added, the reader is better served by keeping all this related material on one page -- i.e. merging it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Girl, I stand humbly chastened for my error. As regards the fate of the article, I am not entirely opposed to merging it. I would question, however, your comment that the entry on the site is about the current building. The opening line identifies the topic of the entry as a modern estate, and then proceeds to give its historical background. I feel that the estate's current occupancy by an international center of education also makes it significant. So remaining in the way you suggest, while actually preferable on a personal basis (here the term "nunnery" is considered derogatory), would not reflect the actual name of the estate.
As regards the question of priority of title, I consider the title of Baroness far more unique than that of prioress as a monastic superior, which every priory automatically has, and consequently the secular title seems more noteworthy. In this case, she was the only female on the entire island to hold a secular title of power. While it came ex officio, it was still distinct from her monastic office and unique to Mann, and should be considered separately. Daniel the Monk (talk) 19:22, 1 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 Galactic quadrant and delete history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quadrant (astronomy)[edit]

Quadrant (astronomy) (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 on astronomical quadrants based on the equatorial coordinate system is apparently unsourced WP:OR invented by the original author. A search for reliable sources turned up nothing of substance. It was PROD-ed, but the PROD was removed as the result of a misunderstanding. The original author was notified, but no references were added.

An alternative to deletion is to redirect to Galactic quadrant, which is a notable topic. (Be careful not to mistake sources about the Galactic quadrant system for this topic.) Unfortunately there is nothing to merge since this entire article is unsourced.

Note that this AfD is no reflection on the article writing or the idea itself; it's just OR and therefore inappropriate for Wikipedia. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. RJH (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; can find no sources for the meaning the current article puts forth, and it is not a plausible redirect for Galactic quadrant. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 20:30, 25 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.

Page deletion error and request for information to be restored.[edit]

The information you have deleted can be cross referenced with this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_constellations_by_area

The quadrant listings are identical..except the table/page you deleted made the information more presentable to see what constellations were in each quadrant. As for source..try Nasa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.117.195 (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 Cherry Hinton. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry Hinton C of E Primary School[edit]

Cherry Hinton C of E Primary 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)

No indication of WP:notability. No WP:reliable sources. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the haste in which these tags were added to the article I think it would be courteous to allow the creator time to respond. Dahliarose (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dahliarose (talk) 10:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 26 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 deleted as copyvio. Peridon (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vrishchika Jakata[edit]

Vrishchika Jakata (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, nonsense and a suspect copyright infrigement. jfd34 (talk) 17:22, 25 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  06:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

House of Habsburg-Itúrbide[edit]

House of Habsburg-Itúrbide (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 no such house in either or Google Books[22] Google Scholar[23]. The House of Iturbide disappeared long ago. Mexico abolished all nobility tittles in 1917.

This pretender doesn't appear in any source either:

--Enric Naval (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the above is likely a real person, it's not clear the House of Habsburg-Itúrbide really exists. The only source for the whole article is this website, which states only that "the couple [ Maximilian I of Mexico and Charlotte of Belgium, his wife] had by this stage accepted the fact that they could not have any children of their own so to secure the succession they adopted the heir of the original Mexican imperial house and his cousin, thereby not only securing the succession but also legitimising their position in the eyes of the monarchist supporters of the Iturbide’s. These adopted Mexican princes would succeed Maximilian with the name of Habsburg-Iturbide." There's no other reference to the name, anywhere.Flyte35 (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And that website looks like a personal website written by the pretender himself.... --Enric Naval (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and they were only adopted as an act of justice to protect the descendants of an dethroned emperor, Maximillian considered they were not of royal blood, and he never intended them to inherit anything [24]. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it is the the pretender, the website doesn't even say that the House of Habsburg-Itúrbide is extant, is says merely that that WOULD have been the name if things had gone differently.Flyte35 (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge or Redirect with/to House of Iturbide. Roodog2k (talk) 17:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not good enough. There's no outside reference to confirm that the House of Habsburg-Itúrbide even exists. Recommend full deletion.Flyte35 (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree, but others may have the mistaken impression that this exists. A redirect and updated content could correct this mistaken impression. Roodog2k (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are no reliable sources documenting the pretender or his claim or the non-existing house. And we have a reliable source saying that they were never going to inherit any royal right. We can add one sentence saying that there is a pretender, but it won't be sourced to any reliable source, just to this person's personal website. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 02:47, 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 keep. Per WP:SK #1. However, there is no prejudice against renominating this article with an actual argument for deletion. (non-admin closure) →Bmusician 02:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mamola Bai[edit]

Mamola Bai (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)

Rahul Mothiya (Talk2Me|Contribs) 16:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 25 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 via WP:BIO/WP:PROF joe deckertalk to me 17:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Birchall[edit]

Daniel Birchall (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 declined a speedy A7 request on this article, taking it to AfD instead. This is basically a glorified resume of a non-notable individual. Doesn't appear to pass the criteria at WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC. -Scottywong| babble _ 16:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 25 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  06:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Doghouse Diaries[edit]

The Doghouse Diaries (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've just declined a quite longstanding (by speedy standards) A7 on this. It's quite borderline, but being mentioned by some of the sites that it has been may well be enough to get through A7. However, the discussions taking place on the talk page do indicate that some wider discussion would be useful about the notability of this article, hence why I've brought it here. GedUK  16:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete ‣ I agree that the A7 did not apply since the article explicitly claims importance stemming from "considerable exposure" but after a variety of Google searches I would say that this topic doesn't satisfy WP:GNG, no significant coverage in reliable sources. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 17:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ‣ A simple google search would not be good enough to determine notability of a webcomic. Textual description of a webcomic is akin to explaining a joke, which is seldom done. Most often just the image from the webcomic is used and nothing much is talked about it . There are ample examples of usage of comic strips from doghouse diaries, ranging from xkcd blag to geekosystem or mashable or Gizmodo. Few such links: gizmodo, geekosystem etc. However, I also searched google images for doghouse diaries by uploading the images, which is a better measure of notability when it comes to images and comic strips. One such example is color names if you re a girl. In short I think if webcomic attains some critical level of sharing, it should be considered notable enough. What that critical number should be and how that could be determined would still be debatable. But in my opinion, I think Doghouse diaries certainly has achieved that. Shashi B Jain (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That just is not related to the Wikipedia concept of notability. A comic strip, or a comic strip's content, being linked to in various places or even published in print doesn't make it notable by itself, any more than say advertisements for a company or a company's products being linked to or widely printed makes the company notable. Wikipedia notability (which is a technical term here described by policies and guidelines, we aren't simply talking about the English definition of the word) requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject,". XKCD, for example, had entire magazine articles being devoted to it half a decade ago, gets discussed in books like Theorien des Comics:Ein Reader, and even receives mention in things like The Metareferential Turn in Contemporary Arts and Media. The Doghouse Diaries hasn't received anything approaching this so far, though it might in the future. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 15:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I agree that Doghouse Diaries doesn't have the same coverage as XKCD, but it still has significant coverage. Also the coverage cannot be compared to advertisement, as they are paid for and are promoted by the interested party. Whatever coverage doghouse diaries has received is from independent sources, and the sources are all reliable social magazines (mashable,gizmodo and geekosystem), and it's not just a mention in passing but more concrete than that. What I would not agree to is that only if its discussed in a book, or an academic journal would it qualify to have an independent existence. If you could (and I ask this very politely) state why you think the sources I have mentioned in the article not 1. independent, 2. reliable (else I would suggest we should nominate their pages for deletion in wiki), 3. not significant coverage. Shashi B Jain (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2012 (GMT)
  • Also just to put points in perspective, according to wiki, '1. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material'. 2. Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. And for rest see [[25]] Shashi B Jain (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2012 (GMT)

  • Because simply linking to or re-publishing content from the comic strip is not coverage. If you don't like the advertisements example, here's another: just because a film is available for streaming download on Netflix does not make it notable if it hasn't been the subject of any critical reviews, hasn't received any awards, and hasn't been included in any sort of curated film archive. If you think that Wikipedia notability standards need to be revised so that a webcomic which "attains some critical level of sharing" meets notability requirements for its own article you need to convince the Wikipedia community overall and make your arguments at the project pages for the policies and guidelines, not in individual AfDs.

    But even besides that, items like the Mashable "15 Great Geeky Web Comic Strips" are basically blog or web farm content - in fact it looks like it's split across 15 pages to maximize advertising loads - not journalistic or other editorially-reviewed coverage.

    Perhaps the text of this article is encyclopedically valid enough for incorporation into another article, just not eligible for its own; if you can propose an appropriate article I'll consider changing my !vote to a merge, though of course you would have to convince the editors working on that article as well to get it to stick around if consensus in this AfD supported a merge. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 17:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I still am not convinced with your next example, as they do mention and talk something about Doghouse diaries (its not profound as Albert Camus discussion on absurdity, but it does refer and talk about comics from doghouse diaries). I would also like to mention there are also many other places where Doghouse diaries has been discussed as the main topic, for example this as I was not sure about the editorial system. All the links or references I provide are well established magazines. If this doesn't sound convincing enough I have another reason, lets assume that probability of an article being mentioned in one of the magazines with editorial system, just out of randomness and not owing to the notability of the article be 'p'. But once its mentioned in another magazine this probability drops to p^2 and so on. With it being cited in more than 5 of such magazines (which are independent and with editorial system) the probability that it was talked about out of sheer coincidence or bias would be p^5. Even a moderate assumption of p being 0.1 would make this probability extremely low ( 1 in 100000) and I guess this could be a risk worth taking. Shashi B Jain (talk) 19:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are the places I found its been rated as top X webcomic -> 1. top 8, best webcomics, 60 funniest (its ranked 1),top 5, Quora,top 15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashi B Jain (talk • contribs) 19:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, if you want to argue that notability should be based upon some quantitative formula or that Gawker blogs and web sites which describe themselves with statements like "The mission of Geekosystem is to unite all the tribes of geekdom under one common banner" should be regarded as reliable sources for establishing notability an AfD is not the place to do it, you really need to campaign elsewhere within the Wikipedia community to change the standards. You could also get involved in WikiProject Comics/Webcomics work group to help articulate guidance for assessing notability for webcomics in particular. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 20:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should point out that I haven't included Geekosystem in the references, I do understand wiki standards. I am still trying to figure out if the article would be justified within the existing framework. I also do agree after going through wiki pages for say Cyanide and Happiness, that the present article can be greatly improved, but also it should not be deleted. I do not have any more arguments , but just hope that reason prevails over personal prejudices which result in statements like 'web sites which describe themselves with statements like "The mission of Geekosystem is to unite all the tribes of geekdom under one common banner" should be regarded as reliable sources ' (which also reeks of condescending attitude) Shashi B Jain (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize if you feel offended, but that is literally the first thing it says on Geekosystem's "About Us" page and Geekosystem is among the sources you describe as "reliable social magazines" above. This is not personal prejudice, the sites you are linking to and things like most top x lists are not what are normally considered reliable secondary sources or otherwise notability-establishing here on Wikipedia. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 21:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry as well. What I wanted to say is, on one hand you follow the wiki guidelines in the strictest sense, and on the other hand you judge the editorial integrity based on what is written in the "About Us" page. The article in xkcd blag on 'Color name if you are girl or guy', is of academic nature (on a subject which wouldn't be funded in a research institute to be seriously dealt with), and is brought out in a humorous manner by doghouse diaries (which is humor all about) . However, I also agree that blogs involve individuals and no editorial system, and so shouldn't be considered as reliable source. On the other hand although mashable etc do mention doghouse diaries in articles which are not of serious nature, they do have an editorial system, and shouldn't be considered as reliable source. If we follow strictly the wiki guidelines, not judging the editorial system of a magazine or journal based on what is written in their "About Us" page, nor going by who funds a magazine ( which could even raise questions on the editorial capabilities of the CNN) and occasional misinformation in articles which could have far reaching consequence (as has happened in 'The Nature') , I think my sources on doghouse diaries suffice the minimum requirement of reliability. Wiki was not meant to be solely elitist, in which case , a grandiose and serious "About Us" could have had been criteria to judge the editorial integrity of a magazine, and until the rules are changed in wiki's notability to explicitly address this point, we need to accept mashable and gizmodo to be reliable sources. Shashi B Jain (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that these sorts of sources are fine to use in articles to support and source non-controversial claims, but they just don't appear to be what this community would consider notability-establishing. However, you make good arguments for your case and I think that other editors assessing the article for this AfD should look at what you say.

    Here's another idea though, in case consensus in the AfD does not support keeping the article: how about you use this material you've written and sourced to start a Wikibook cataloging the webcomics that are out there? Or, perhaps it would be appropriate to add to this one? Or perhaps post it to a non-Wikimedia project about webcomics like http://webcomics.wikia.com? (Conversely, since that content is under an open license, you could use stuff from that Wikia web site to start a Wikibook if you properly attribute it.) --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 19:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think i did some editing while you were already posting :). I agree it could be merged with a bigger article, but for time being, until I or someone finds a place for it, could exist without the tag for deletion. Also given more time, it could be presented in much better style, which could dispel all the concerns raised here. Thanks for being patient in this discussion. Shashi B Jain (talk) 19:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Interestingly I found the comic strip of color survey discussed in Language Log here. On surface, you might discard it as another blog, but on close inspection this is maintained in academic manner by Mark Liberman from UPenn and group of other eminent linguists. Should this be considered as a reliable source ?Shashi B Jain (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I am familiar with Language Log and that's a notability-establishing source IMO, I have seen it treated as a reliable source among academic linguists. Some argument can be made that the posting concerns one particular item of content from the comic strip rather than the comic strip itself but if you can find one or two more sources of this caliber discussing the strip itself or particular comic from it in addition to the color survey here I would change my !vote to Keep. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 15:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found another one from Language Log, but I haven't included it yet. The whole idea was to test ( humorously, as would come out in the comments) what was pointed out in Doghouse Diaries. These do not come out of just simple Google search, but I think there would be more references around, but for time being are these enough ? I have yet to include this one in the wiki page, but haven't done it as I need to think how exactly to include it. Shashi B Jain (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That second link is just a reprint of a comic, unfortunately. But the first Language Log link definitely makes it look to me personally that it's on the edge of notability and if it doesn't qualify for its own article now it probably will shortly if it continues to be produced and more secondary sources continue to appear. In case it gets deleted from this AfD you should probably make a userspace draft so that you can continue working on it and re-create it or submit it as an article for creation when you think you have sourcing that passes muster. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 17:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for actually seeing through my points, its already feels like an accomplishment to see that you are somewhere convinced. However, there are two more admins who think this article is not good enough and I could imagine in the future there would be a few more. Suddenly I think it doesn't make any sense, if its notable enough, and there are many people talking about, it shouldn't be difficult for anyone to find out about it on google, maybe it won't be as convenient as having all reliable information in one place, but still it should be easy, and if its not no one would look up for it. In all of this I am not able to see why I wanted to push for this page so much in the first. But thanks for your comments, I think you have been very patient as well. Shashi B Jain (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's a worthwhile effort - it's still good to collect the most important or most notable information about this comic, it just isn't quite at the level for its own Wikipedia article yet. I really think you ought to at least copy it to the Webcomic Wiki at Wikia, and with luck it will have the coverage needed for notability soon. And by the way, I don't have an admin flag on my account; any editor is welcome to participate in these Articles for Deletion discussions. (And any discussion at Wikipedia, actually; administrators don't have any special authority or weight to their opinions, just extra capabilities on their accounts.) --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 00:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I have never heard of Mark Liberman or Language Log I am willing to accept at face value that they are some sort of authority in linguistics. Having said that, the posting at Language log is not actually about Doghouse Diaries, it is about a post by xkcd, who in turn posted a reprint of the Doghouse Diaries original comic. I see the post on Language Log as the equivalent of Barbara Walters retweeting one of Justin Bieber's tweets, and suggesting that the Beeb's tweet could be used to establish notability (yes, I am aware of the rhetoric I am using here). --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Often re tweet is how scientific works are cited, with a small mention of who else has worked on a particular problem in the introduction, not discussing in large what the other work did. In this case it appears what they are discussing was first done by Doghouse diaries. Now its matter of how you present it, Bieber retweet or citing a work done for the first time. But I do get the point, the sources I have cited are not reliable and the topic should be discussed in a serious publication (seriousness and reliability still being subjective ). Shashi B Jain (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pet peeve: CSD A7 states, "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." - so, an unsubstantiated claim to importance is enough to disqualify speedy deletion. At the point the "assertion of importance" language was added to CSD, importance was defined like this: "There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be simultaneously interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community)."

    So, articles that claim that their topic is the object of considerable exposure or note that their topic is prompting discussion within something like the XKCD community of web comic fans (spawning a blog post with a thousand comments, if you follow the link) really shouldn't be subject to A7 speedy deletions: saying that a web site has gotten considerable exposure is not an incredible claim. An incredible claim is something like saying that asteroid 1134 Kepler, while not described as remarkably different from other asteroids, is getting considerable exposure and is being discussed widely on social media sites, or that a Howard Johnson's hotel in Gary, Indiana is important because Napoleon Bonaparte slept there.

    (But, as I said above, I agree that the material presented in this AfD does not add up to significant coverage in independent reliable sources for the purposes of notability.) --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 03:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I disagree that saying something on the Internet went viral and had a lot of page views is a credible claim of importance (or a claim of importance at all). I also didn't consider being covered by XKCD to be a claim of importance either, regardless of how many comments the XKCD post received, because the comments are about the XKCD study, which was inspired by the comic. I understand your position (and often remove inappropriate speedy deletion tags myself), however I disagree with it in this instance.--kelapstick(bainuu) 03:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, so long as we note that the claim here is that a considerable "number of people are, were or might be simultaneously interested in the subject" and that the particular part of my point that you're disagreeing with is the historical consensus definition of importance that I am quoting. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 05:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added yet another reference which puts doghouse diaries in the list of Top 8 web comics. This was in the web-magazineMakeUseOf, an independent media magazine, with an independent editorial board. MakeUseOf, Mashable and Gizmodo, each of them have covered Doghouse Diaries well enough to qualify it to be notable. The objection however could be as to whether the above sources are reliable or not. Here are my points why they could be considered reliable
  • They are not related to Doghouse Diaries, nor does it seem that they are trying to unfairly promote Doghouse Diaries.
  • They have editorial system, for which I refer to their corresponding wiki articles, for example the editorial for MakeUseOf is Editorial staff. Each one of them has an Editor-in-chief and so on.
The clarity of this discussion would be enhanced if the other wiki editors could cite the reason why they think the above references cannot be taken as reliable. Points like Mashable is a trivial source, is a trivial argument. Shashi B Jain (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  Sandstein  06:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Long articles in Rees's Cyclopaedia[edit]

Long articles in Rees's Cyclopaedia (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:NOTDIR Wikipedia is not a list. It's also not referenced.  KoshVorlon. Angeli i demoni krushili nado mnoj...  16:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For scope reasons I have moved the article to List of Rees's Cyclopædia articles. Other moves are possible. JJB 22:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks ‣ Too statistic-y or data-compilation-ish to be encyclopedic content but no reason to banish it beyond the access of normal users by simply deleting it. Fine content for a reference work at a project that has greater tolerance for original research. At the very least, userfy instead of deleting. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 17:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki - as per Bandersnatch. This article is 100% original research. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Don't attach too much importance to the "long articles". The length cut-off makes sense, since the long articles are the important ones, authored by some of the most distinguished writers of the period. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The person who pointed to this now says it isn't a test case for what they were saying. My comments on that enclosed.. Dmcq (talk) 11:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 
This article has been cited at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Arbitrary split 3 as an article on a topic that is not notable in itself but which should be kept because it is a spinout of another article and so only need follow content guidelines. Do people here think that this article would fail notability tests? In particular are there secondary sources that specifically talk about the topic of the article which is the contents list for the cyclopaedia? I notice in the lead these statements cited to secondary sources that seem relevant
  • The Cyclopædia; or, Universal Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, and Literature is an important 19th-century British encyclopædia
  • Scientific theorising about the atomic system, geological succession, and earth origins; natural history (botany, entomology, ornithology and zoology); and developments in technology, particularly in textiles manufacture, are all reflected in the Cyclopædia
  • Serially published 1802-1820, the Cyclopædia was criticised for its idiosyncratic topic selection and alphabetisation standards.
  • In 1820, Philosophical Magazine analysed the work's contents by half-volume publication dates, as proper priority had not been given to serially published scientific discoveries (this seems to be the main source)
I would be interested in whether people think do these support notability of the contents list? Or is this a good example of something that is kept as an article but is not notable? Dmcq (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence ("This article has been cited") is Dmcq's interpretation: the only comment Dmcq links says nothing such, nor do I believe a diff could be found supporting Dmcq's interpretation from the prior conversation it summarizes. My analysis favoring spinout notability here is above. JJB 03:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
You said *We do have an AFD test case now, though, initiated by User:KoshVorlon, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long articles in Rees's Cyclopaedia. This article and its main topic Rees's Cyclopædia are an excellent example of abandoned, poorly wikified spinout practice that rings most of the changes in the discussion above; a move is certainly indicated, and a merge is not impossible. The AFD followed a citation at NORN and would likely illustrate many of the points already discussed."
Above at Related discussion I see you have stuck a paragraph which I don't really understand and can't see the point of. And the title has been changed to include 'List' which muddies the waters further. Can't you just make things shorter and more clear please? What was the point of mentioning this ongoing AfD anyway, an AfD which kept an article which wouldn't normally pass notability but did because it was a spinout is all that is needed. That would demonstrate that there is a real point to your putting that bit into WP:SS saying notability is not required for spinout articles.
Since you are saying now you do not think thi is a suitable case to show your point I think we should just leave the good folk here alone. The discussion at VPP is already TLDR without inflicting it on unrelated areas. Dmcq (talk) 11:16, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Your interpretation that I think this is "not notable in itself" is the first mistake: I never said this article was nonnotable. (2) I was going to thank you for refactoring, but your collapse header makes an additional mistake. I did in fact say it was a test case for what I said it was for (which was not that this was nonnotable, but that it was ambiguous to editors, and one of a class of articles that are handled in diverse ways by diverse editors). (3) If you want to understand "Related discussion", be specific about what you need; it has several points that speak for themselves; but a key point is in (2) above. Since you have misunderstood me repeatedly and also admitted not understanding me, it might be best not to continue guessing what I say until you get it. (4) The move was agreed to, unobjected, policy-based, advertised, and reversible. (5) The reason I mentioned it at VPP is that I see that discussion covering a large class of articles and you believe that none of those subclasses (lists, notable subtopics, or nonnotable subtopics) necessitate changing the summary guideline. Thus this "test case" (by my definition) is a good example of seeing how editors interact with their varying approaches, and that interaction is proceeding fruitfully. The counterexample you are demanding as a "test case" appears to me logically impossible given your definitions, but I haven't convinced you of that yet. Beyond that on this question, please return to the other discussions. (6) You repeat the mistake in (2) when you say I don't think thi is a suitable case. (7) VPP may be TLDR but, like this AFD, is yielding fruit and understanding for participants. However, things get TLDR (as here) when I believe comments suggest I should simultaneously correct 3 misinterpretations, answer 3 implied questions, and respond to one TLDR charge. JJB 15:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Each of these points supports the concept that Rees' work is notable, and there's no question on that. But we still have no reason why to list out the article within it (full or partial) as part of en.wiki's coverage. Yes, it is important to talk about the broadness of topics (which can be done in the main article) and those that contributed to it (which can be done in the main article). Wikisource can be used to replicate the work's content. Unless there is some notice or importance to the longest articles in the work, it is trainspotting and not an appropriate spinout. --MASEM (t) 05:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 
I believe this collapse header is mistaken as described within. JJB 15:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
There is no point in looking at this if it is notable. Only an article that is not notable that passes AfD would make a reasonable case in the other discussion. Dmcq (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This list of articles could be expanded to include shorter ones if editors could be found to work from the digitised version.
I have an open mind about whether the list should be transwikied, but hope the data is not lost, since IMHO is is of use to readers, as its the nearest thing to an index of Rees we so far have, bearing in mind the problems of finding material in the original.
I am very pleased with the latest version of the list, with the introduction and links and thank everyone involved in doing it. Kind regards Apwoolrich (talk) 06:38, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no OR in stating that a certain article in the work exceeded a number of columbs. But it is OR to that that is an important criteria to develop a list on. Length == quality, and if we go off some critical articles on WP's policies, we'd be saying that Pokemon is more important than WWII (for example). The work is clearly out off copyright so there's a home in a sister wiki project, but the list here is not appropriate. One can fairly make a summary of the range of articles covers, the sizes of such articles, and the various contributors as a summation of the work. --MASEM (t) 15:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In particular, WP:CALC explicitly says that routine calculations are not original research. Computing the column-length of an article in a book is surely a routine calculation. Dricherby (talk) 09:21, 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 delete. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG nor the relevant SNGs (e.g.., NFOOTBALL). joe deckertalk to me 17:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jón Pauli Olsen[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. PROD was contested on the grounds that Mr. Olsen had managed a Faroese first division team, and the Faroese U-17 Women's national team, neither of which is sufficient to meet WP:NSPORT. In spite of the numerous citations the article fails WP:GNG. Except the first inline citation, which is routine sports journalism, all the sources listed are either dead links, statistical sources explicitly excluded as routine by WP:NSPORT, or have no information on Mr. Oslen whatsoever. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:45, 25 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) 01:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lawinfo[edit]

Lawinfo (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:NOTABILITY; gnews archive hits are press releases or passing mentions (the only article I could find that seemed to be about the company is less than 50 words long.) ghits, while plenty, do not appear to be the sort that denote notability. Nat Gertler (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 25 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.


This discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as an attack page. SmartSE (talk) 14:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Trent[edit]

Justin Trent (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)

Attack page BLP violation. Page has already been blanked.  KoshVorlon. Angeli i demoni krushili nado mnoj...  13:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, articles such as this should be tagged with ((db-g10)) to ensure they are deleted as quickly as possible. SmartSE (talk) 14:04, 25 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. (non-admin closure) →Bmusician 02:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair trade coffee[edit]

Fair trade coffee (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)

Essay, rant, whatever you want to call it  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

—Northamerica1000(talk) 14:06, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 25 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. Looks like this one gets boxed up in Wikipedia's government warehouse Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Government warehouse (fiction)[edit]

Government warehouse (fiction) (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)

Prod contested on the grounds of an AfD from 2005 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Government Warehouse). Fundamentally unencyclopedic topic. Literally nothing more to say about this than that it is a particularly cinematic metaphor for government coverup. The supposed examples are disparate and there are no reliable sources tying them together; any attempt to do so is therefore synthesis. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 25 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) 03:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Evolution of the Genome[edit]

The Evolution of the Genome (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 indication of notability. In fact, it appears to be less notable than any average textbook. Probable vanity article. Bueller 007 (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 25 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 (non-adimin closure) —HueSatLum 00:08, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Literary and Scientific Society (Queen's University Belfast)[edit]

Literary and Scientific Society (Queen's University Belfast) (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)

Debate club that does not have any secondary sources. I could not locate any. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 22:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's some good advice at Wikipedia:Verifiability. Two basic requirements are that they need to be independent of the club itself, and reliable. For example, a paragraph or more in a professionally-published book, or a (non-student) newspaper article about the group would be good sources. Warofdreams talk 21:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bob Purdie's Politics in the Streets looks to be a good source with a paragraph or two on the society. On the other hand, Armstrong's biography of founder E. L. Godkin only gives it a cursory mention, which might be useful as a reference, but doesn't help establish notability. If there is a second good source, I'll support keeping the article. Warofdreams talk 21:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great, those are all potentially good sources. A University in troubled times is available in snippet view on Google Books. The search doesn't turn anything up for this society in that book, although it's not 100% reliable. Can you confirm that each of those books includes at least a paragraph on the society? If so, I'll support keeping the article. You can cite books in the same way as you cite online sources; there are examples in Wikipedia:Citation templates. Lots of different citation styles are accepted, so long they are clear and consistent within the article. Warofdreams talk 09:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good to me. Warofdreams, what think ye? (By the way, Soidnesqueegee, use four tildes (~~~~) when signing to add a date to your signature.) --
  • Keep - now has good references providing evidence of notability. Good work, Soignesqueegee! Warofdreams talk 09:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:02, 25 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. (non-admin closure) →Bmusician 02:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dulcita Lieggi[edit]

Dulcita Lieggi (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 appear to meet the notability guideline for models or the general notability guideline (contested prod) – hysteria18 (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:15, 17 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) 02:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Read the article properly. She will represent the Dominican Republic in Miss Universe 2012.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I heartily apologise for misreading your stunningly-crafted prose. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 09:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hihi, Im not the actual writer of this article ;). I just started it. Thanks for your "keep" input.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:48, 26 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

B.GoldmanLIVE![edit]

B.GoldmanLIVE! (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 webcast. No sources. No apparent coverage by outside sources. Likely COI. DarkAudit (talk) 02:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 25 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 Apparently acceptable. SL93 (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek: Deep Space Nine DVDs[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine DVDs (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)

Wikipedia is not for a directory of DVDs. Fails WP:NOTDIR. SL93 (talk) 01:38, 25 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. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Les Feldick[edit]

Les Feldick (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)

Although there are a number of gnews hits for this Bible teacher, they're all just announcements that he'll be at a local church. I don't think that he meets the minimum criteria for inclusion at WP:GNG. Pburka (talk) 02:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 18 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 01:36, 25 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battlecam.com[edit]

Battlecam.com (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 is actually notable: all the coverage seems to be PR based. I suppose a merge might conceivable be possible. DGG ( talk ) 02:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 18 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 01:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A quite remarkable example of a statement which relaxes in an idyll of perfect sense if you know what it means already and is is hellbent on a collision course to meaninglessness if you do not. Deletionists are not writers, it shows, and in some cases it is probably a good thing. Anarchangel (talk) 05:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no need to salt: it was I who previously deleted it as an a7, but then restore it thinking it not clear enough for a speedy. DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 30 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) 03:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Stauber[edit]

Carrie Stauber (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)

Carrie Stauber is a non-notable actress. She appeared in minor roles in four television series and she had a minor role in the two television films that the articles says she starred in. She played the part of "Nurse" in Love, Lies & Lullabies and she played the part of "Alpha Woman on Street" in Brave New World. Fails WP:ENT. SL93 (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 25 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  06:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Triptyque[edit]

Triptyque (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)

Self-promotion by an architectural firm. WCCasey (talk) 06:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Dewritech (talk) 07:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - See WP:PERNOMINATOR, where it's stated: "It is important to keep in mind that the AfD process is designed to solicit discussion, not votes. Comments adding nothing but a statement of support to a prior comment add little to the discussion." Northamerica1000(talk) 16:29, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Triptyque". Dezeen Magazine. Retrieved 2009-03-01.
  • Triptyque, Brazil". Architecture and Urbanism. April, 2009.
Perhaps someone on Wikipedia may have access to the following article to confirm its contents: Triptyque, Brazil". Architecture and Urbanism. April, 2009.
Also it's asserted in the article: "Triptyque was one of 15 firms recognized in the 2008 Nouveaux Albums des Jeunes Architects (NAJA), an annual award of the French Ministry of Culture."
—Northamerica1000(talk) 12:55, 19 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 01:34, 25 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 Mass Effect#Anime. Closed per WP:SNOW as a redirect of this stub to Mass Effect#Anime where content has already been merged. No prejudice against possible recreation once this announced film actually begins filming. For now, consensus deems the topic as premature for a separate article Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mass Effect: Paragon Lost[edit]

Mass Effect: Paragon Lost (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 out yet, coverage is only of that it's going to exist. Lots of ME media without articles exists. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:34, 25 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) 16:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 25 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. If this is a scam, or a scandal-ridden sex affair, the content of the article can reflect that. With thanks to NorthAmerica: reliable sources to prove notability (and scandal) exist. Such sources were not produced at the first AfD, hence the different result. Nominator and others are urged to improve this article based on said sources. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Asia Pacific World[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Miss Asia Pacific World (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 was recently deleted in an AfD´. See nothing that has changed too make it a notable pageant. Non-notable per GNG. Scam pageant. It's Delete for me. BabbaQ (talk) 12:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also this. Of course, it may be that the contest is notable as a scam pageant. But I'm unsure of the ethics regarding "balance" in a case such as this. GwenChan 14:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understood the nominator to mean that the pageant "scams" the competitors - telling them it will pick up their travel tab, then refusing, not providing accomodation as promised, "dodgy" voting, refusal to hand over prizes etc. Not "scam" as in "it does not exist." GwenChan 08:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
—Northamerica1000(talk) 02:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I commented above, this may be notable purely for the scandal/scamming of contestants. But surely that isn't a particularly good basis to keep an article? GwenChan 08:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah Nortamerica1000, all that coverage is proof of the fact that the pageant is a scam troughout and was the reason to why the article was deleted in the first place.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Then add in more information to the article regarding this aspect of the topic. Topic notability is based upon the availability of reliable sources, and not subjective opinions about the topics themselves. Actually, the pageant appears to be scheduled to occur in 2012. When it occurs again, will it be described as a "scam"? Maybe, maybe not. If it's a "scam", what type of scam is it? Regardless, the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Topics that receive negative press coverage are not therefore non-notable vis-a-vis the negative press coverage. Wikipedia policies and guidelines are in place to prevent the subjective deletion of topics in this manner, based upon subjective judgments, rather than the availability of sources. See also WP:NOTCENSORED. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still all the sources in the entire world can not change the fact that it was a non-pageant held in 2011. The girls were offered to have sex with officials if they wanted to place high. Venezuela won the talent competition without even entering. Girls left after feeling scared for their lives. This "pageant" does not forfill the WP:GNG requirements at all. All sources of dignity are only reporting on what a scam this "event" was.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And now I see that the original winner was dethroned then the first runner up was dethroned sop now the second runner up holds the so called title. Ridiculous.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I dont buy that argument. All "multiple reliable sources" only provide information about the scams of this pageant. Wikipedia should have articles on beauty pageants but only the ones with good reputation and reliable organizations. Such as Miss Supranational that was just kept via an AfD.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Bmusician 01:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Miss Asia Pacific World is different from Miss Asia Pacific International.--Arielle Leira (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree non-notable pageant. Were winners are dethroned for 1 runner up and then the 1 runner up is dethroned. Ridiculous. Does not pass WP:GNG at all. Some keep arguments here are based on that the pageant could become better in 2012 but it seems that it only getting worse as the first runner up was dethroned earlier this year. That indicates that 2012 will only get worse.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The above !vote seems to be a subjective rationale about the notability of the pageant itself in comparison to other pageants, rather than upon Wikipedia's Notability guidelines. WP:GNG is based upon the availability of reliable sources that are comprised of significant coverage about topics. This topic has received significant coverage in several reliable sources. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are still missing the point. All those reliable sources points out that the pageant is a fraud troughout.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Despite how the pageant was characterized in sources, the actual topic received coverage. See also: WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If the article has significant, continued and diverse coverage about the scam that took place at this beauty pageant. It should be considered notable per the notability guidelines. You cannot reject notability by saying that the reliable sources say its a fraud. To Northamerica1000: I am a little confused on what your opinion is, are you saying that the article is kept as a regular beauty pageant, or a scam beauty pageant? --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 21:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep - Furthermore, Wikipedia is not censored. If the beauty pageant is a fraud with significant coverage, then its a keep from me. --Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 21:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find that reasoning faulty at best.. and still call for a deletion of this article as no pageant exist. a scam pageant exist yes, but until the organizers can prove that the pageant can hold international standards it can not be called a pageant and by that does not need a article on Wikipedia. And provided the fact that the 1 runner-up was dethroned recently in favour of the 2 runner-up almost unheard of in real pageants it doesnt look good for the 2012 edition of this "thing". still does not pass WP:GNG in any way.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:31, 31 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. Little appears to have changed since the first discussion; a few references were added, but as pointed out they don't add up to significant coverage. Black Kite (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Williamson[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Alex Williamson (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)

Previously deleted in September last year, lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources to prove his notability. The-Pope (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to WP:ARTIST.The person is not notable as Uploading good comedy videos on Youtube and having a channel on Youtube does not makes it notable.Also, he has played a very minor role in one film.Max Viwe | Your Turn 13:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article was tagged for speedy deletion under G4 criteria.See this revision [41].But the sysop Malik Shabazz declined the speedy deletion, that's why it has come to AFD.Max Viwe | Viwe The Max 17:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Too many details and well written, that's why. 107.16.78.114 (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I should have checked the history first. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 14:08, 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 01:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Straphanger510, if you can't agree that "having a channel on Youtube does not make it notable", please look at Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Notability is established by significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and having a Youtube channel does not demonstrate that. Note also that notability is completely separate from popularity: the fact that many people have watched his videos does not help us write a good Wikipedia article — that's what independent sources are needed for. Dricherby (talk) 11:39, 25 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,  —HueSatLum 00:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dakota Daulby[edit]

Dakota Daulby (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)

An actor who is just starting out. Has done shorts except for the movie, The Woodcarver. The movie was a small production that appears to have been directed toward the Christian market. Only one independent and reliable source. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Prod was contested for unknown reasons. Bgwhite (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bgwhite (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:24, 19 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 01:32, 25 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vr-zone[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Vr-zone (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 website. A single source that makes a single mention of the site's forums doesn't convey the notability required for WP:WEB or WP:GNG, and I was unable to find anything else that would establish any sort of notability for the article's subject. SudoGhost 00:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only once source that was about a scam, not the site itself. Struggling to find enough in the way of reliable sources to support the article. The many grand unsourced claims and external links in the body suggest to me it was written to promote the site rather than inform about it. Would need to be stubified and written from scratch if kept at all. Яehevkor ✉ 12:25, 30 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Péter Perjés[edit]

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

A search for sources for this one turns up nothing. Ridernyc (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Péter Perjés was a rock singer in Hungary, leader of the rock band August Föster Reservation. I have some written old sources such as newspapers from the early 90's. All references will be added in 2 or 3 days' time. Giodapolito (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Delete I lean toward deletion of this article. I don't think that Péter Perjés meets the WP:CREATIVE notability standard as either an actor or a musician. I did some research, and IMDB says that he was in one movie, and another website says that the band that he was in made one album. I am not that knowledgable about Hungarian popular culture so I a little bit cautious here, but based on what I've seen, he is not notable. NJ Wine (talk) 00:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know that sources on the Internet are poor. We are talking about the lead singer of a rock band with just one album in Hungary back in 1992, and that's the problem, all references are written and at a national level. August Förster Reservation had a big success in Hungary from 1990 to 1994, but it was like a shooting star. This doesn't mean it's not a part of the Hungarian folklore. On the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cc_oj7539Hg we can see how the media at that time covered this success. In two or three days' time I'll be able to add names and dates of written references (local and national newspapers). Regards. Giodapolito (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NB. Searching "Peter Perjes" (with no accents) gives an idea of how well-known Pérjes is at a European level. References about his early steps are poor on the Internet but his work as a musicals director, song writer and producer in the last 5-6 years is noticeable. Giodapolito (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do not you add more Hungarian sources then? A couple of more sources like Nepsabadsag, which is already present in the article, and this might become a clear keep case.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some more references proving notoriety of Péter Perjés. Giodapolito (talk) 07:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now keep.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article now has sources, doesn't seem to be any question about notability either. - filelakeshoe 20:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 25 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 DNA repair-deficiency disorder. To the extent deemed useful by editorial consensus, of course.  Sandstein  06:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inherited human DNA repair gene mutations that increase cancer risk[edit]

Inherited human DNA repair gene mutations that increase cancer risk (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 WP:STAND, a list article should bring together separate articles that are related. Most of the mutations do not have their own articles. This is kind of useless in providing an uninformed reader a direction to go to learn more.

Also per WP:CRITERIA, the title is way too long and fails to be succinct. Not a reason to delete, but it does indicate that it's kind of an "invented" title in an attempt to bring together non-Wikipedia articles into one place.

Finally, not to cast aspersions on the author who created this article, but many of the citations appear to be his own publications. This isn't quite spam, but in some other context, we would consider it to be so. Maybe if a writer could jump on this article who doesn't have conflict of interest, maybe it would be all right.

Right now, it doesn't add much to the body of knowledge for Cancer on Wikipedia. However, at some point that each of the mutation has its own article, then a list article may actually be useful (with a better article title) SkepticalRaptor (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the last comment. The title of the article being debated is rather long-winded, but to merge it with an article with a shorter title would solve the problem of the title. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:21, 23 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, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it's an abstruse point on a badly-constructed article and I missed it. While I'd much rather bin the thing tidily, I accept we must retain the hideous mess for copyright purposes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unless someone has already merged material from that poorly sourced, poorly formated, jargon-encumbered list, there is no requirement that we retain it for copyright purposes. The list already existed, and deep sixing the mess remains a valid option. I wasn't explicit, but when I recommended deletion, the absence of novel content worth merging was a major factor.Novangelis (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it's poorly-formatted and jargon-encumbered but in what way is it poorly-sourced?—S Marshall T/C 16:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that the references are unsuitable, but the selection is on the old side and hapharard. We can flesh out the existing material with just these two more recent review sources:[43] [44]. With better references I might have recommended merger.Novangelis (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that we can write it with only two sources doesn't mean we should throw out others. They may be haphazard and old, but there's no suggestion that they're inaccurate. Look, Novangelis, the whole wiki philosophy is that you build on and improve what other people have written before. You don't just throw out others' work and start again from a clean sheet, even when that would be easier. If it's fixable we're supposed to fix it.—S Marshall T/C 17:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, we're perfectly allowed to WP:TNT if that is the best route to a better article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Ossip Groth (talk) 11:57, 28 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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2005 English cricket season (8–30 April)[edit]

2005 English cricket season (8–30 April) (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)

Contains a level of detail that fails WP:N. The provided references does not cover most of the article's content. SocietyBox (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the above reasons:

2005 English cricket season (1–14 May) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2005 English cricket season (15–31 May) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2005 English cricket season (1–14 June) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2005 English cricket season (15–30 June) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2005 English cricket season (1–16 July) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2005 English cricket season (17–31 July) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2005 English cricket season (1–15 August) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2005 English cricket season (16–31 August) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2005 English cricket season (1–13 September) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2005 English cricket season (14–25 September) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Thanks for linking to that. Having read quickly through the discussion, I don't see anything there that changes my opinion that the articles are just routine news coverage of mostly routine sports matches (and I say that as a big fan of cricket). In particular, the requests to keep and merge did not seem to be policy-based in general. I agree that Wikipedia includes some functions of almanacs but that doesn't mean all functions. In particular, if you want to look up a player's overall career stats, Wikipedia is as good a place as, say, cricinfo.com — professional cricketers are notable, so Wikipedia has biographies of them and such a biography would be incomplete without their stats. But I don't see any notability in the individual matches. Dricherby (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Essex Eagles imploded to 122 all out in chase of a small target to bring a tiny measure of excitement into the National League title race, while Gloucestershire Gladiators recorded a rare victory to take them out of the relegation zone. Batting first, Gloucestershire were bowled out for 182 in only 44.1 overs, Matt Windows top-scoring with 57 while Darren Gough and Grant Flower took three wickets each. Malinga Bandara and Martyn Ball shared the highest partnership of the match, adding 59 runs for the ninth wicket to carry Gloucestershire from 118 for 8. Essex then crawled to 49 for 7, James Averis finishing with amazing figures of 8–2–9–2, while Ball and Mark Alleyne also grabbed two wickets each. Despite 46 from New Zealand all-rounder Andre Adams, Essex were all out for 122 when Adams was caught off the bowling of Mark Hardinges.

Other than a pointer, not a reference as such, to a scorecard on the CricketArchive site, there is no verifiability at all. The paragraph contains examples of WP:POV and WP:PEACOCK terms. The terms of WP:ROUTINE summarise the articles very well and I do not think they are appropriate. --Brian (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, almost all of that report is verifiable from the scorecard and a table of the season's league results, or from almost any media report of the match. (The exceptions are the POV terms "imploded", "tiny measure of excitement", "amazing" and "crawled".) The issue here is notability, rather than verifiability. Dricherby (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see where you are coming from but I don't think notability is an issue. The articles are about first-class cricket and concern competitions, clubs, venues and players who all meet the criteria laid down in WP:CRIN which effectively summarises notability in terms of cricket. --Brian (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is absolutely an issue. WP:CRIN summarizes notability of cricketers, teams and venues but says nothing about individual matches. The players, teams and venues mentioned in the articles being notable does not establish that the matches discussed are notable because not everything done by a notable person or organization is, itself, notable (WP:NOTINHERITED). The key policy here is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER: "... routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." These articles are precisely routine sports news reporting. The guideline for notability of sporting matches is WP:SPORTSEVENT. That doesn't mention cricket but the examples given imply that ordinary matches from a domestic season are not notable, unless something unusual happens that causes a match to receive much higher levels of coverage. I'm not even convinced that the international matches are individually notable, though the series are (WP:NSEASONS) and, for example, the 2005 Ashes series already has its own article with detailed match summaries. Dricherby (talk) 09:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 25 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.
  1. ^ WorldCat
More