Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday May 9 (Thu) May 8 (Wed) May 7 (Tue) More...

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

< 11 November	13 November >

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The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Orihuela[edit]

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

Ineligible for BLP PROD because of date of creation, this article is a BLP and has no references whatsoever. I tossed up between a CSD and an AFD. I chose AFD because it mirrors the BLP PROD timescale. No notability asserted. There are many Spanish rhythmic gymnasts. Is this one notable? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are many sources for the subject, see for starters [1] [2] [3] [4], more on GNews. It seems what's notable is that there aren't many male Spanish rhythmic gymnasts, and the subject was the winner of the first two editions of the National Male Rhytmic Gymnastics Championship [5] (2009 and I guess 2010; note that Spain is the first country having a national tournament of the discipline). I'm going through the sources now and I'll be adding to the article during these days — Frankie (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Nomination on the basis of the references added to the article. Passes WP:GNG. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted WP:CSD#A3 "a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks." JohnCD (talk) 00:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ok to wear a camouflage hat to boy scouts[edit]

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

For obvious reasons. AutomaticStrikeout 22:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - see Back to the Future as reference for going back in time to prevent this from ever happening in the first place. Stalwart111 23:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under A1. §everal⇒|Times 23:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 23:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

M. Macha Nightmare[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

She's a witch, LOL. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, and WP:GNG. Article was created by an arbcommed wikispammer who has written dozens of articles about people who've attended a "witch festival" that he hosts. Qworty (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment: I consider the statement "She's a witch, LOL." to be bigoted and offensive. Wicca is a legitimate religion, and its clergy deserve to be treated with respect.Rosencomet (talk) 04:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm finding some things in JSTOR and in some other books that suggests that she's used as a source, but not much else. [6]Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I wonder if this interview ([7]) with a student organization would be usable. I'm kind of leaning towards "no", but thought I'd list it here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: M. Macha Nightmare is a recognized scholar and teacher within NeoPaganism, but I believe that the article currently lacks the citations needed to back up this fact. I'll start adding more citations to help flesh out the article. Thanks! Phoenixred (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Macha appears to be more notable than most witches, with a printed encyclopedia article and interview in the SF Gate and speeches at mainstream Universities.[8] She appears to be taking Pagan studies and education mainstream, or trying, and if successful could be very notable: "She is committed to developing the first, and so far only, program providing Pagans quality higher education and practical training in Pagan ministry." If she were the first to establish an accredited Pagan ministry program at a University it would be easily notable. But currently, the sources are mostly weak because we are not supposed to rely on other encyclopedias, and other than the SF Gate, they all seem like small mentions and not in-depth (or unreliable in the external links). Basically I can't figure out why Macha is notable other than being senior and active in the community for a long time. She has given lots of speeches and interviews, organized conferences, served in boards and committees, written books, journal articles. These are all the normal types of things a late-career person will have accomplished within their field of study, but there is a lack of in-depth coverage in multiple reliable independent sources to take it to the level of Wikipedia notability. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ She does appear to be notable in that world, but I don't see any serious coverage in academic sources. I have to admit to being put off by the nominator's first argument for deletion, "She's a witch, LOL." Wicca is considered by most religious scholars to be a serious religion. That comment was about as helpful as "she's a born again christian, LOL," or other similar expressions of extreme religious intolerance. First Light (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changing to Keep after finding some more academic sources. She is mentioned frequently as an authority in Cyberhenge: Modern Pagans on the Internet (Routledge 2004) by Douglas E. Cowan. Same with another Routledge book, Enchanted Feminism: Ritual, Gender and Divinity among the Reclaiming Witches of San Francisco by Jone Salomonsen. Also mentioned in The Nature of Magic: An Anthropology of Consciousness (Berg Publishers 2005) by anthropologist Susan Greenwood. Is mentioned as among the "Neopagans and scholars" who were authorities used by Sarah M. Pike in her book New Age and Neopagan Religions in America (Columbia University Press 2004). Is mentioned as a source in Things: Religion and the Question of Materiality (Fordham University Press 2012). First Light (talk) 05:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If she was notable in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/M. Macha Nightmare, then those same reasons should still apply. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at that AfD before registering my Delete above. It seemed like the first Keep voter had found two sources and that was good enough for everyone that followed. Problem is, one of those sources is an encyclopedia, which we are not really supposed to use; and the other source is trivial mentions (most of them photography credits!) not in depth. I couldn't find "multiple reliable independent sources in-depth" as in WP:42. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs a lot of work, and fails to mention some of the more notable activities of M. Nightmare. She's quite a notable person, which is why you'll find her smiling face on the cover of Witches & Pagans magazine, issue 25. Folklore1 (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously prominent author in her field, and major spokesperson and leader in the Neo-Pagan community.Rosencomet (talk) 04:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep author published since 1981, who seems notable in the Pagan field. The Steve 08:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears compliant with WP:GNG. --Nounique names 16:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as one of the founders of the Reclaiming Collective, she is a significant member of the pagan community. Queenlaese (talk) 10:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- with Comment: M. Macha Nightmare is a Witch (please note the capitalization of her religion as a religion), an author, a Priestess, and an educator. The comment "She's a witch. LOL" is bigoted and disrespectful toward Macha and our religion. The commenter provides no useful information regarding her inclusion or exclusion from Wikipedia. Macha was one of my instructors at Cherry Hill Seminary, which offers the first Pagan Master of Divinity degree in the world, of which I am the first recipient (May, 2009, in Pagan Pastoral Counseling). My own transcript and supporting documentation has been accepted by the Board of Chaplaincy Certification, Inc. (BCCI) for the Association of Professional Chaplains (APC) as equivalent to a graduate theological degree from an accredited seminary -- which is the most that could be hoped for until Cherry Hill Seminary achieves accreditation in the next few years. RedBird 17:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Keep: M. Macha Nightmare is definitely well known withing the Wiccan community. In addition to her other achievements sited here she has been a force in establishing the first Pagan seminary and is currently a prominent member of it's board. See http://www.cherryhillseminary.org/about/leadership/board-of-directors/m-macha-nightmare/. Also she is an active member of The Covenant of the Goddess and a published author. I believe that she qualifies for having her entry included in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.43.36.26 (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Corrigan[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, and WP:GNG. Has been tagged for sources for over five years with no improvement whatsoever. This article about a cofounder of the Starwood Festival was written by another cofounder of the Starwood Festival. It is part of this enormous atrocity of spam that has existed on Wikipedia for over five years [9]. The AfD on the other cofounder is here [10]. The arbcommed user who created these two articles has dedicated himself since 2006 to writing and defending articles about his Starwood Festival and all of its participants. He's violated WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:BIO, and also WP:CANVASS--so the closing admin should pay particular attention to any meat puppets showing up here. Qworty (talk) 22:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 12. Snotbot t • c » 22:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find sufficient reliable sources that establish notability. The subject might be notable in a specialized wiki or encyclopedia about Druidism or alternative religions, but for Wikipedia there needs to be multiple reliable independent sources that discuss the subject in-depth per WP:GNG. The current sources are either trivial mentions, primary sources or unreliable sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources do not establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources do not establish notability. Mountain Herb (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Qworty has been advised about his somewhat aggressive tone - there is no evidence of any meatpuppetry anywhere. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added some information to his bibliography that I think indicates notability. The discography needs more information, which I don't think will be hard to find. Folklore1 (talk) 03:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- His bibliography and discography are lists of primary sources, not the secondary sources that are required for notability, as simply described in WP:42. Qworty (talk) 06:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. See my comment about the nomination for deletion of Brushwood Folklore Center. This is one of several nominations for deletion that I would prefer to see dismissed immediately. Folklore1 (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not an argument for keeping this particular article. Qworty (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even within the field, the accomplishments as described,do not seem notable. His books are totally non-note, essentially zero library holdings, I don't expect hundreds ofr this subject, but that's too low to indicate any significance whatsoever. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Vittala (talk) 13:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not an argument for inclusion. Qworty (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is enough sources and material already here. 75.160.179.145 (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to be specific? Qworty (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The Bonewits source gives somewhat nontrivial coverage (about a paragraph on the subject, our of a whole book) but is very obscure (worldcat says it's only in a handful of libraries). I can't tell whether any of the other sources are even at that level of quality because they're offline. So the case for WP:GNG is not convincing to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of the Mass Effect universe[edit]

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

In-universe and excessively long, with no critical third-party sources. A few lines could exist in the main article, but there is neither need nor rationale for this split. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:21, 12 November 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) 18:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish people would stop taking editing problems like this to AFD. It's a notable franchise and there is often a clear consensus (whether demonstrated at AFD or elsewhere) to keep separate character lists for fictional franchises, often because separate pages for individual characters have been merged there. The solution is obviously for someone who is actually familiar with the subject to trim it down if the character descriptions are excessive, but even trimmed down the sheer number of characters suggests that it's too long to merge anywhere. postdlf (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with this. I haven't done enough research do formally say "Keep" yet, but I find it rather unlikely that such a popular, mainstream game series such as Mass Effect would be unable to garner at least the bare minimum of coverage to meet the WP:GNG here, especially when, in my experience, the bar tends to be set relatively high for single character articles, but relatively lower for these collective "list of character" type formats. Sergecross73 msg me 19:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Between three (four? I think they just announced the next one this week) games, and several spinoff mediums, it is reasonable to have a character list. Issues with excess plot and in-universe cruft are not reasons to delete something like this. --MASEM (t) 19:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Split or Delete - Article is too long, and should be split or deleted.--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As with other franchises, this is a reasonable split from the main article(s). Remove the minor characters, trim the major ones, and add sourced info, keeping in-game sourced material to a minimum. Lots of material here is of no interest to a general reader, but that is an editorial matter. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Split into a list of notable characters and a list of minor characters. Trim excessive descriptions and properly source (i.e. axe the facebook and wikia refs, add RSes). The list of notables needs RSes showing notability. The list of minor characters needs RSes capable of meeting WP:V to back up the descriptive claims and to verify that they are characters in the franchise. -Thibbs (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as character lists for multi-game series are generally considered okay, and there are sources for this type of content. Article may require trimming and cleaning, but that's not a valid rationale for deletion. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trim as needed, per Torchiest. Jclemens (talk) 02:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being too long is not any reason to delete an article. Maybe it should be split and/or trimmed, but not deleted. JDDJS (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per my original comment and explanations of others above. It needs substantial clean up and trimming, but there's clearly a notable topic here. Sometimes in trimming articles like this up, it's helpful to set up "inclusion criteria" to determine who you want to include. (For instance, only including characters who have appeared in atleast 2 games. I know this is a relatively short running series of only currently 3 games, so this particular one may not make sense, but perhaps a different one could be helpful in cutting down on some of the inevitable future arguing over what stays and what goes.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Sergecross73. Problems can be dealt with editorally, content is the issue rather than the topic. Claritas § 01:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon Tour in France[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Prod removed by article creator. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the nominator says, we are not a travel guide. AutomaticStrikeout 23:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A textbook case of WP:NOTRAVEL. - Whpq (talk) 14:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --Shorthate (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TalentsFromIndia[edit]

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

Unremarkable subsidiary. Wasn't able to find any references that weren't primary sources (company's blog, press releases, etc). Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Provided sources are PR and user-editable sites, unreliable, not RS . Creator and primary contributor are two different SPAs, suggesting article is promotional in nature. Dialectric (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and comment above. Reads like giant ad and is essentially SPAM. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ethyl Meatplow[edit]

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

One-hit wonder indie band with no indication of persistence that fails WP:MUSIC; a song of theirs got heavy play in 1993, but it did not chart anywhere, and the band itself never went major. Everything indicating persistence of a cult following is dated to no later than 1997, and several of those sources are certainly trivial. MSJapan (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article tone is not neutral, and both the phrasing and content is dated, but notability does not decay. Inclusion of the band's work in Beavis and Butthead, 120 Minutes, and Daria would suggest notability has been met, but beyond that, there are quite a few references available from the LA Times, San Diego Union, and a scattering of other newspapers. The debate over whether the band's performance and effects were prerecorded even gets a brief mention in, of all places, Deseret News. While recent references to the band are obviously less frequent (since it's no longer extant), it still gets mentioned virtually any time any of the principle members do anything else (and two of them have, suggesting WP:BAND #6 is met) -- including the recent death of band member John Napier. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability does not decay. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article has a few problems, but notability is not temporary. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per WP:NTEMP. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of coverage exists to demonstrate notability. Not 'going major' isn't any sort of indication that the band is not notable. --Michig (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs to be Wikified, but it's notable. Interesting side note for music fans is that Bozulich worked with Nels Cline, who is now the lead guitarist in Wilco. BeyondKneesReach (talk) 05:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep" The death of a member of Ethyl Meatplow was reported extensively on Pitchfork.com on November 11, 2012. The band retains an insurmountable stature in the Los Angeles underground music scene. Notability does not expire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikied (talk • contribs) 04:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pirouz Davani[edit]

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

No RS to establish notability, and thus unencyclopedic. The tone of the article is also wholly speculative - the subject is "thought to be" many things without proof. Of the two sources, one is a Letter to the Editor, and the other is a website frontpage. MSJapan (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NTEMP. The sources attached to the article are not particularly good but that's more a WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM sort of problem. Some better sources:

This article from 2003 about his disappearance.
~~This press release from Reporters Without Borders which seems to have prompted the above article.~~ - having had another look - the first two are the same text.
This note from 1998 immediately following his disappearance.
This coverage of his and other similar disappearances from the Iran Press Service
This summary from Amnesty International.
This press release reprint, also from RSF, hosted on the UNHCR website.

I don't think it should be too big a problem to create a well-sourced article from the above. I might give that a go. Stalwart111 01:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done - with some changes to links that I was having trouble with from the list above. Stalwart111 02:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after good work by Stalwart111. Sufficient sources and evidence of notability as an Iranian dissident. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to have good deal of coverage from independent reliable secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muhapatti[edit]

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

The article does not site any sources or reference. It is too small. The topic is not encyclopedic. Hence, it should be deleted. Rahuljain2307 (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's an encyclopedic topic. It is similar to many other Wikipedia articles on religious items. It already had one source, I added more, plus inline citations. OttawaAC (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google Books turns up multiple references WP:BEFORE, some of which I see have been added to the article in the past few minutes. AllyD (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Pretty much encyclopaedic, and significant in Jain culture. — Bill william compton^Talk 00:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to LMFAO. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 02:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shuffle Bot[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited, this person is not independently notable outside of LMFAO. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick Google and Google Books search turned up nothing that would help to establish notability. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 19:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - neither the character or his portrayer are independently notable, but probably should get a mention in LMFAO's article. Redirecting will help prevent re-creation. MSJapan (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to LMFAO. Mason Doering (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in a trimmed version and Redirect to LMFAO, it sounds the most reasonable outcome.Cavarrone (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to University_of_Waterloo#Housing_and_residence. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mackenzie King Village[edit]

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

Non-notable dormitory at a university. The award, which might have seemed a possible basis for notability, is from the Ontario Masonry Contractors' Association, for "Structural Design Award--Institutional (Universities, hospitals, government buildings, etc)" — one of 15 awards they give each year. I consider it minor, because only province-level, because only one of many such awards each year, and because from a non-notable organization. The few other references are from within the university. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to University_of_Waterloo#Housing_and_residence - Google provided two results here (Google News) and here (Google Books, minor mention). William Lyon MacKenzie King is notable but keeping the article solely because of this would not be acceptable, notability is not inherited. SwisterTwister talk 03:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Endorse ST argument. Obviously a good building by some standards, not sufficiently so to be WP:N. Most refs speak of it in terms of the University's overall expansion plans, not as an independently notable project, hence better as a section in that article.--Anonymous209.6 (talk) 15:52, 9 November 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, TBr and ley 18:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 12. Snotbot t • c » 18:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. -- Whpq (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect' as suggested above. Mountain Herb (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finish What You Started Records[edit]

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

All references are primary sources. Tagged as not notable. None of the active roster seem to be notable either, and even if one is, the record company doesn't inherit notability. PROD tag was removed, but no reason was given. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage in reliable sources found for this label; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 06:26, 6 November 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, TBr and ley 18:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing of WP:GNG and unreferenced article. STATic message me! 05:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy deleted A7 Peridon (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thekonkolashow[edit]

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

Contested prod. No indication that this animated show has any notability whatsoever. The article doesn't even say what TV channel it airs on. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Spinning Spark 12:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Government of Kazakhstan Airline[edit]

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

Unsourced article, thus failing notability. Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete government operated aircraft is not really an airline and not really notable enough for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 5 November 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, TBr and ley 18:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William 23:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – MilborneOne makes a good point that government-operated aircraft are not really enough to make an airline. And without any assertion of coverage in any source, it fails the notability test. —Comp dude¹²³ 18:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Spinning Spark 12:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FlyJetKZ[edit]

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

No references at all, thus failing notability. Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable topic. TBr and ley 17:46, 12 November 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, TBr and ley 18:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no WP:RS to indicate notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No sources. —Comp dude¹²³ 19:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Spinning Spark 12:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Web-Developer Server Suite[edit]

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

A WAMP package, combining preexisting software into a single distribution. No third party sources, so this does not meet the general notability guideline and should be deleted. I looked for additional sourcing but only found a few non-RS blogs, though the search was made a bit difficult by the generic name of this software package. I am also nominating the very similar article on the commercial edition of this distribution:

- MrOllie (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why Delete?[edit]

(half of this is in regards to Wamp-Developer Server)

Please clarify your position, or suggest specific improvements, instead of general statements and tags.

I have listed why Wamp-Developer Server is notable on it's page, in the Notability Section, with references to 3rd party sources.

In addition -

1. You can see the website going back to 2003 on the Internet Archive - WayBackMachine (http://archive.org/web/web.php), making this WAMP one of the original 2 or 3 WAMPs (with XAMPP and easyPHP). If this is a problem - most WAMPS Comparison_of_WAMPs listed wouldn't stand up to this.

2. "combining prexisting software into a single distribution" ... this is wrong. Wamp-Developer uses it's own C# and .NET coded application and managerial framework, which sits on top of the web-server components. It's a 200,000+ line application. Not only does it provide original software, but it also manages the WAMP components completly different than from other WAMPs such as Xampp... Allowing switching between Apache, PHP, and MYSQL with 1-click and no new installs.

3. "No third party sources" ... I have listed 3rd party sources for multiple statements of fact. Can you clarify what you are looking for? You can search the internet or StackOverflow and ServerFault for mentions of "WampDeveloper" or "Wamp-Developer". There are MANY results. Also "Web Developer Server Suite" (the previous incarnation/name).

4. The page Wamp-Developer Server was created because MrOllie and previously Ronz reduced the Comparison_of_WAMPs page of all links to entries without a Wikipedia page. These were entries of WAMPs with, in some cases, 100s of thousands of active users. Wikipedia guidelines here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LISTN#Stand-alone_lists ... clearly state that Lists do not have to contain notable entries as long as the list (as a group of entries) is notable itself and it's not "large" (10 entries is not large, I removed 10 dead WAMPs from that list a long time ago myself, but never active projects). This produces a problem such as this. Even a catch 22 in some cases.

Also...

5. Wamp-Developer Server was published days ago, is being actively changed to fit wikipdia guidelines, and has maintained the "New page" tag from inception. This type of speedy deletion submission is concidered by wikipedia guidlines to be in bad-faith, as far as I can tell.

Vorlion (talk) 19:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Vorlion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The 'references to 3rd party sources' you added all discuss XAMPP. None of them mention Wamp-Developer_Server at all. We need reliable independent sources about this topic, not about other software packages. Stackoverflow and Serverfault are web forums (They do not meet the sourcing guidelines) and do not build the case for notability. For the benefit of other participants in this discussion, I'll mention that Vorlion has [self identified] himself as the publisher of this package. - MrOllie (talk)

MrOllie

The mentioned references are to back up the statements of fact on the page. I'm still not 100% sure what you are looking for... General mentions of the product name? Also, there are 4 other points above. Regarding your last statement, for the benefit of other participants in this discussion, I'd like to point out that I've never stated otherwise. I've been working with WAMPs for the last 10 years. I've also looked at your history, and while you do offer a good service in removing spam, at the same time you've listed an enormous amount of notable content up for deletion. Vorlion (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for the article to meet the requirements specified in the General notability guideline, which I linked in my nomination. I think you should read it, it will answer your questions. - MrOllie (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have read that. It is a "general" guide and does not lend itself to WAMP distributions well... I have also linked to a similar page for you in my original point #4. See the link-pages here Comparison_of_WAMPs for notability "standards" for WAMPs or please be more specific. Your link also states you should add and revise, instead of delete (last-resort)). Vorlion (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a 'general' guide because everything should meet it. Your link to the stand alone lists guideline doesn't apply here, we are talking about the independent article you created, not a list entry. I tried to add and revise, but I could not find the required sources. As the package's author, you would be in an ideal position to provide sources, should they exist. It would be very helpful if you would do so. If you (or someone else) do not provide such sources, the article will very likely be deleted. - MrOllie (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie "I tried to add and revise but I could not find the required sources" Can you clarify with a specific example of the needed source/reference, and to what part of the content it needs to be applied to? It's convenient that 1) your summery states that this will be your last comment here and 2) your history (removed of spam cleaning and reverting) shows no real additions to anything, all I see is red for the last 4 years that you've been here. Vorlion (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Vorlion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

MrOllie[edit]

I have looked at your history, and you are trying to delete pages in the web-development area (forum software, php frameworks, etc) that are not only notable in every point of the guidelines, but are in the top lists of their category; while at the same time, leaving lesser notable pages in place.

You're history (removed of spam cleaning and reverting) shows no real additions to anything since your first day.

You've also been intentionally general in your responses.

I don't think I or You should discuss this further as we both know there would be no point... And leave this to whoever makes the final decision. Hopefuly, it's not you! (I have no idea how the deletion process goes).

I would ASK you for 1 thing though, as outlined in my previous point #4…

Wikipedia guidelines here -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LISTN#Stand-alone_lists

... clearly state that Lists do not have to contain notable (or wiki-paged) entries as long as the list (as a group of entries) is notable itself.

If these pages do get removed, I'd like to add the active non-wikipedia-paged WAMPs back to Comparison of WAMPs. Or better yet, for you to do that (as you culled the list).Vorlion (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails the general notability guideline. Google News and News archives turn up nothing when searching for "web.developer server suite"; Google Books only retrieves books with content copied from Wikipedia; Google Scholar has three articles mentioning something called "web developer server suite", but it's unclear if this is it, and regardless of whatever it is, it isn't in any of the abstracts, leading one to believe that it is not discussed in any depth. If the data on Web.Developer Server Suite currently listed in Comparison of WAMPs can be sourced somehow, then it can remain there, although I'm not sure if the title is worth redirecting. CtP (t • c) 21:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC) Per searches similar to these, Wamp-Developer Pro (the subject of the apparently mis-titled Wamp-Developer Server) does not seem notable either. CtP (t • c) 22:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CtP International Journal of Advancements in Technology, Vol 3, No 1 (2012) - http://www.ijict.org/index.php/ijoat/article/view/open-source-software/pdf_30 - "Web-Developer Server Suite" is listed as being one of the major (can read as - notable) projects in the web-related-area... Right next to Xampp. That's one more citation I'll add to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorlion (talk • contribs) 21:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's a good starting point. But I still feel that the suite lacks the "significant coverage" required to meet the GNG. Inclusion in a list doesn't necessarily mean it's notable (things are similar on Wikipedia—things which aren't considered "notable" can still be included on lists). With regards to your dissatisfaction with the GNG as a tool to assess notability for Web.Developer Server Suite, the only other guideline which might be applicable is Wikipedia:Notability (software) (although it's not really a "guideline" at all, just an essay). The criteria for inclusion are quite similar to the GNG, though. CtP (t • c) 22:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 'International Journal of Advancements in Technology' article includes a list of OSS projects at the end. According to the reference in that article, the list was copied from Wikipedia's List of free and open-source software packages. - MrOllie (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't even realized that. It ought to be disregarded completely, then. CtP (t • c) 11:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails WP:GNG lacking WP:RS. aggressive WP:BLUDGEONing does not advance notability. LibStar (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability; not even close to enough significant coverage in reliable sources to establish that this product is notable. An attempt to include Notability as an in-article sub-heading to answer talk-page / AFD criticism is a pretty good indication that the product struggles to establish notability against WP:GNG. Though it's a user essay, WP:NSOFT gives a pretty good idea of what the WP community would expect to see to establish notability in this particular case. Also agree with the above - the bludgeoning and personal attacks are uncalled for. Try to keep it civilised. Stalwart111 00:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only citation is one that's using content taken from Wikipedia. No indication that the software is notable, as demonstrated by the lack of significant coverage in sources.--xanchester (t) 06:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete trivially minor distro of other notable packages. This might be notable if it was unusually widely used, or some similar reason, but that sort of claim needs sourcing and this has none. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:16, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 02:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IsAnybodyDown?[edit]

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

Non-notable website. The website has come under heavy criticism in recent days from a number of blogs. The current web page is sourced primarily from these critical blogs. But, despite the blog-war ongoing, and the website getting a lot of negative attention across the web, there are no reliable sources in the article to show the site's notability. The couple of RS on the page are for tangential subjects, not the topic site itself.

On top of all of this, the site's owner is now attempting to scrub the page. But that all aside, we still have a small-time website that IMHO simply does not meet the notability criteria. TexasAndroid (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ - GQ Magazine looks reliable to me (though my French is not the best), but on its own it's not enough. Huon (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - with the addition of Techdirt and Ars Technica articles, it has become sufficiently notable, and we can write a well-sourced article. Huon (talk) 05:37, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would not generally consider Techdirt a reliable source. It's another blog. A widely read blog, that I follow regularly myself, but still a blog. No real editorial control to make it up to the level of RS. Ars Technica is a whole different matter... - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did some searching and couldn't find anything in reliable sources that amounted to "significant" coverage. There certainly are a lot of bloggers talking about them, but not the reliable sources we'd need to keep the article. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm one of the bloggers covering this. While I have (of course) great faith in my own writing and those of the other blogs, this doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. --Adam.steinbaugh (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with the above, with the addition that if the conflict eventually becomes covered enough to the point where it's notable, there's no reason the page can't be recreated after some discussion. White Ash (talk) 04:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The sources listed are not notable and are being used with many weasel words, i.e. non-notable sources making vanity edits on their own behalf/agenda. There are several legitimate sources which have linked to this website (mainstream local Richmond, Virginia news covering the Anna Michelle Walters case, as well as Velvet in Hungary - a top Hungarian news source) however, that is not even listed in this article. In this form, the website is not notable (because most of the negative sources are dictating the edits from their own non-notable websites rather than attempting to meet neutral POV). Additionally, this should really be a speedy delete and the article should already be gone, because the primary edits were made by vandals, engaging in vandalism and nonsense. Here's a list of the sources examined:
Popehat - Not notable
Adamsteinbaugh - Not notable
Abovethelaw - Not notable
Jezebel - Not notable
Huffington Post - Notable, but does not mention Is Anybody Down.
AngelList - Not notable
IsAnybodyDown.com - Does not need to be linked in multiple sections/multiple links unless they are directly referenced by notable sources

Essentially, the top 4 are squatting on this article and engaging in vandalism on behalf of their non-notable websites.75.70.221.14 (talk) 09:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete The GQ source establishes the website's noteworthiness. The reliability argument is a red herring. The statement that Marc Randazza is asking plaintiffs to come forward is reliable because those are his own words. Yet, it was removed. That Craig Brittain and David Blade III share the same IP address is again not up for debate: the e-mails are there for anyone to see. David Blade III is not registered in New York -- that is a statement made by the NY Courts. That Craig Brittain owns both the IsAnybodyDown? site and Takedown Hammer is not a fact awaiting confirmation by the mainstream media -- it is reflected in the site registration record, as pointed out by Marc Randazza, Ken White, and anyone else who can type into the search query of whois.com. That the words "Takedown Lawyer" and "David Blade III" were removed from IsAnybodyDown only after allegations of fraud were raised is not from an "unreliable" source, it is, again, a historical fact - there for anyone to see. Nobody editing this article drew a direct causal relationship between the suspicion and the removal, but the fact is, it happened. That women are harassed because of the site does not need to be confirmed by CNN, because you can simply go to the site and see it for yourself. Givemelsats(talk) 12:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you call a red herring, Wikipedia calls one of it's core policies. I'm sorry, but reliability of sources is essential around here. And blogs are (almost) never considered reliable sources.

The GQ article is a help towards notability, but is not really enough by itself. Notability generally requires multiple reliable sources. We have one, maybe. I say maybe because, given the language difference, it's a little hard to tell. Is it an actual article, or just a blog/column? I can see that the subject site is mentioned, but it's a little hard to tell if it's a 1-2 paragraph mention in an article about the larger situation, or an actual article on the IAD website. I'll try to get someone who can get past the language barrier to give it a look. But even if it serves, it's still not enough, by itself.

What is interesting to me is the two items mentioned by the IP above. If one or both of the mentioned articles could be tracked down, it's possible that we might have our reliable sources. I'm not a good internet hunter myself, so I'll leave the searching for those two to others. But I'm open to changing my mind if multiple RS can be come up with. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to hunt down the sources mentioned by the IP editor (who, by the way, is probably related to IsAnybodyDown). Google News didn't find anything (except Above the Law which seems to have an editorial staff and a publisher and may thus be a little more reliable than the average self-published blog, but probably not sufficiently so). Thus a quest for the Richmond, Virginia sources is rather difficult. A web search just produced lots of links to Anna Walters pictures hosted on IsAnybodyDown, but nothing remotely resembling reliable coverage of the website. http://velvet.hu/ exists, but a search on that website for "Is Anybody Down" or "IsAnybodyDown" came up empty. Unless the IP editor can himself provide links to those sources, I don't think we can find them. Huon (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor (75.70.221.14) isn't just related to the site, he is the owner of the site. He has also previously engaged in edit warring and vandalised Wikipedia articles. 91.125.140.243 (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed. This e-mail exchange, written up by Marc Randazza on Wednesday, shows the same IP address used by the IP editor, Craig Brittain, and the "Takedown Lawyer": http://randazza.wordpress.com/2012/10/31/is-isanybodydown-com-operator-craig-brittain-and-david-blade-one-and-the-same/ Givemelsats (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: http://velvet.hu/sztori/2012/10/19/tanarnojerol_posztolt_pucer_kepeket_az_iskolas_szereto/ (It's non-english. That's why you didn't find it). The original articles from WRIC and WTVR included references to Is Anybody Down but have since been removed. Either way, this entire article needs to be re-written from a neutral POV if it is to stand (with no references to biased non-neutral blogs). 75.70.221.14 (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe my Hungarian is lacking, but I don't think that article mentions IsAnybodyDown. It includes a link but never discusses the website itself. Huon (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article uses an image with the Is Anybody Down watermark and references the website as a link. A link from an established, reliable source is infinitely more valuable than sources which do not meet any of wikipedia's 3 core editing principles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability. The current sources on the page do not meet any of these three. Furthermore, the supposed 'sources' are really just attempts at squatting on a potentially notable website for their own ends - making references to people and websites who will probably never meet the three core editing principles of Wikipedia.75.70.221.14 (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that trying to apply Wikipedia's "core editing principals" to our sources exhibits a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia does and how it uses sources. That Wikipedia editing should be NPOV does not require that it only use NPOV sources, and our range of acceptable sources is plenty broad. That Wikipedia is not for original research does not mean that it cannot reference such research. I can point to exactly one site which holds Wikipedia's core principals, and it is one that experienced Wikipedia editors understand is not a reliable site. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The only two sources that I wouldn't immediately write off are the GQ post (which appears to be a blog-like section of the site) and the post on Jezebel...one might make an argument for those being passable as reliable (see WP:NEWSBLOG), but...its hard to tell how controlled either are from an editorial standpoint. The link to Velvet provided by the IP editor contains only images obtained from the site and contains a link to the site, barely a fleeting mention. The meat of the post is related to the aforementioned Anna Walters issue, not IsAnybodyDown. If kept, there may be some cleanup work needed to ensure we don't run into POV issues and the like (I'm guessing this would reduce the article to a stub, however, based on its current state). Aeternitas827 (talk) 03:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This same content also appears at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/IsAnybodyDown?, which was created 4 November, the day before this AfD went up. One or the other should be deleted or they both should have a histmerge or whatever is deemed appropriate. Shearonink (talk) 00:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep the ongoing issue is in its early days (which is to say that either more 3rd party references will arrive soon, or the topic can be reconsidered in a month or two) and in general has a lot in common with The Oatmeal and FunnyJunk legal dispute, which is a useful and well-regarded wikipedia article TJIC (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether it may become notable at some unknown point in the future, but whether or not the site is notable *now*. At the point in time when the more notable media sources jump into this, it can be revisited. For now, IMHO it's simply not (yet) notable. - TexasAndroid (talk) 03:52, 12 November 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, TBr and ley 18:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary Section Break[edit]

Ok. We have what may be the first English Reliable Source out today. Ars Technica If this counts as a RS, then the corner from non-notable to notable may have been turned. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've been reading about this ongoing saga on Techdirt. I would say that it is notable now. The person who runs the site has deleted the entire content of this page and replaced it with a legal notice, so even he agrees that the subject is notable. Albeit in the wrong way, but if it's so important that someone wants to censor a civilized discussion of its notability on grounds unrelated to notability, it's probably notable. Jamouse (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is reaching major news outlets including Ars Technica. Cowicide (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is now another international source (Huffington Post Italy) that also names the site's founders. Also added an article today from Daily Dot. 21:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.170.150 (talk)
Keep I reverse my earlier vote to delete. NPR has now identified the founders and interviewed one of them. NPR On The Media. --Adam.steinbaugh (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rotary Club of Coimbatore Downtown[edit]

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

Insufficient evidence that this particular club branch is notable. AllyD (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETE the club is not notable and no references.(Harishrawat11 (talk) 07:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - Notability not established; local chapters of organizations are rarely notable, and the article even states that this particular Rotary club is "one of many." MSJapan (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - The club is not notable, unable to found RS. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 08:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Alaska lunar sample displays. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur C. Anderson, an individual Plaintiff v. The State of Alaska and Alaskan State Museums, and agency of the State, Defendants[edit]

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

I don't think the lawsuit is itself independently notable, and I believe the notable information is already there in the Alaska lunar sample displays article. Delete. (If consensus is not to delete it, perhaps merge it.) --Nlu (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 12. Snotbot t • c » 17:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose deletion~~ Merge I've added two additional sources, so far. the lawsuit is important in that it deals with the legal question of ownership of the display and the moon rock. I've added another source to the many that are already there. The case has not (so far as I know) been finally resolved or decided, and one can reasonably anticipate further legal developments. Notability is clear, in my opinion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Alaska lunar sample displays. The case itself has not received significant coverage, especially since it's a local state court matter (as opposed to federal). Nevertheless, it seems it would fit better as a new section in the main article, something like 'Litigation' or 'Legal disputes'. -- Lord Roem (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a notable legal case by any stretch of the imagination. I can't anticipate that this would be a notable case in property law; cf. Pierson v. Post. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Alaska lunar sample displays - per the same arguments as Lord Roem above.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Alaska lunar sample displays - per Lord Roem above.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vassal Gradington Benford III[edit]

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

SPA (record exec, maybe Vassal himself) created. Spam/vanity. All the sources are passing mentions, none significant coverage, in spite of there being an insane number of them. Being listed as "producer" in a number of places doesn't pass GNG. For disclosure, I've previously salted another version of this article after it was recreated many times as a copy vio. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I spent some time trying to clean up the text of the article, but it's just a tissue of passing mentions and user-generated sites. Stuartyeates (talk) 17:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To far infested with sockpuppets and meatpuppets to be reliable The Banner _talk 21:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is having produced a Grammy-nominated song enough for notability per WP:MUSIC? Bearian (talk) 17:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The song he produced was nominated for 'Best Female R&B Vocal Performance' rather than production values and he got no obvious coverage out of it in reliable sources. So apparently not. Stuartyeates (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Delete. Bearian (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ekaterina Erika Eternia Cruz[edit]

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

Simply not notable. Can't prod it cause someone deproded it. Can't speedy it cause there's no right speedy. So left with wasting others time. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Countdown is on. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search very quickly brought up this page: [11], which shows that this is ultimately someone's own story creation that they decided to add to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not for things that you came up with one day, whether they be games, words, or stories. They must show that they are notable per independent and reliable sources. Given that this story hasn't even been posted to the Internet yet, it's a little too soon to be posting a Wikipedia page for it. It's unlikely that this will become notable but not impossible so if/when it does become notable, feel free to re-add it when the series passes WP:NBOOK.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete = this is a run of the mill character in a fictional universe. Fails too many guidelines and policies to count. Bearian (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Delete as non-notable made-up stub by a single-purpose author with one edit.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep (withdrawn), as Cyclopia was the last one with a !vote for deletion. Thanks for the good work, everyone. CtP (t • c) 23:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Nectarius of Digne[edit]

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

Non-notable historical person; no hits for "Nectarius of Digne" on Google Books, News, or News archives except for this, which looks like a brief mention or false positive. CtP (t • c) 15:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with no prejudice on recreation - Can't find any sources for both Nectarius of Digne and Nectaire of Digne (which is indicated by Bishops of Digne as an alternate spelling). And the, well, terseness of the article reflects this. If someone finds something, I'm happy to reconsider. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Keep per sources found and extension. I'm happy I've been proven wrong! --Cyclopia ^talk 23:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep: Searching Google in French "Nectaire de digne" or in German "Nektarius von Digne" produces more results; someone familiar with the sources might improve the article considerably. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would this reference in Latin to "Nectarius ... Dinienſem Epiſcopus" also refer to the same? I'm not familiar enough with Latin to be sure (I can only translate individual easy words). Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Gallia Christiana (Google Books - I don't know how to link to the page) volume III, p. 1112 (is this how it should be cited?) there is a nicely sized non-stub article devoted to him. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~What was the spelling used in Galla? If we know the spelling, then searching the book for the individual page is easy. CtP (t • c) 21:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Realized my error there. CtP (t • c) 22:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The entry in Galla does appear to be about the same Nectarius, and there does seem to be rather more written about him that the substub suggests. Nevertheless, although I lean towards presumptive notability for anyone from this far into history that can still have a cogent article written about them from extant sources, I'm forced to wonder whether or not bishops who have nothing else particularly noteworthy about them warrant inclusion merely by virtue of the office (cardinals, certainly, but at some point there's a line to be drawn). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I just incorporated further material from two sources, and will look for more. — Hebrides (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per the good work of those wishing to keep the article (in particular, Hebrides), I am withdrawing my nomination, but per WP:WITHDRAWN the discussion should not be speedily closed, especially taking into consideration that there was another editor advocating deletion. CtP (t • c) 22:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my !vote given the sourcing and improvement. I'd say this can be closed, given that it's withdrawn. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was The result was delete. The delete camp makes a policy-based argument based on WP:NOT that I have to allocate substantial weight to in comparison to the keep side, which relies only on notability. Notability does not guarantee that an article should be kept, it only establishes minimum eligibility.—Kww(talk) 15:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC Ultimate Fight Night[edit]

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

Contested PROD : This sports event fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER policy, there is no attempt in the actual article to demonstrate any lasting significance, the sources are primary news sources of the routine type any sports event gets that NOTNEWSPAPER explicitly says "is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia". There is no analysis in any of the sources of why the event is in any way encyclopedic. Mt king ^(edits) 20:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

*Keep and advise topic ban for nominator who is woefully ignorant of MMA as he just copy and pastes the same dishonest boilerplate delete vote across every MMA related article he can find. I don't know if he bombed out in his MMA debut or what, but clearly he's trolling the MMA articles. The article concerns an event that is notable for many reasons: Nate Quarry was the first TUF participant to earn an UFC title shot.^[1] Nate Marquardt made his UFC debut and was later tested positive for nandrolone.^[2] It was the second-ever UFC event on free television,^[3] with the telecast drawing a 1.5 overall rating in the United States.^[4]^[5] Now perhaps the most laughable part of the nomination is to say that the event is not encyclopedic. For Christ's sake, it appears in multiple published print encyclopedias: [12], [13],etc. What is encyclopedic for multiple printed encyclopedias is certainly encyclopedic for the ultimate paperless encyclopedia. Finally, even in the worst case scenario the nominator offers no reason why the article could not be merged and redirected. Who are we protecting that we would have to red link this article, but keep a discussion about it? Oh, and it is also an insult to these notable fighters to denigrate them and defame them as "non notable". You should be ashamed!! --172.162.38.35 (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2012 (UTC) — 172.162.38.35 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked for Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me deal with each of those links one by one and demonstrate why they do not help demonstrate why this event meets WP Policy :

The mmamania.com link does not discuss the event, it mentions the event in passing.

The mmafrenzy.com link likewise only mentions the event in passing.

The two Ivan's Blog's links are firstly from Blogs which WP routinely does not consider as RS, and secondly the title of the blog says it all "Featuring Ivan Trembow's Self-Important, Random Rants on Mixed Martial Arts, Video Games, Pro Wrestling, Television, Politics, Sports, and High-Quality Wool Socks", not what anyone could call a respected publication.

The sherdog link is a very good example of what NOTNEWSPAPER calls "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities".

of the two "published print encyclopedias" one is written by the UFC Editorial Director and is not therefore interdependent, the other "The MMA Encyclopedia" appears to "detail the results of every MMA fight in history" in probably the same way that New York Giants Pride details every game in the New York Giants 2007 season but that does not make each and every game of that season notable enough for a WP entry nor does the The MMA Encyclopedia make every MMA fight or event notable.

Mt king ^(edits) 18:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan's Blog archived every MMAWeekly post. MMAWeekly is the second best MMA website. Look here and here. Or ask Ivan Trembow himself.--LlamaAl (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are just trolling us... You are really dismissing multiple printed books and specifically encyclopedias as not indicative of encyclopedic content?! WTF?! By what backwards anti-logic does it make sense that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC Ultimate Fight Night is a blue link and UFC Ultimate Fight Night is a red link? Who on earth does it benefit to keep for public consumption a useless discussion about something, but to get rid of content that is covered in printed encyclopedias, concerns the first televised event of this name, featured major fighters, was seen by hundreds of thousands of people, went on to spawn many follow up events due to its success, influenced the careers of the participants, the network, and the UFC?! Moreover, these events are not just covered in MMA specific sites. See here as USA Today and other national newspapers that are not MMA specific cover these evnts in detail. The fact that you are seriously saying to redlink rather than even merge and redirect is just mind-boggling. We delete jibberish and defamatory stuff. Can we verify the contents of this article? Yes! Is the article jibberish? No. Is the article racist, sexist, etc.? No. Does it concern a televised event? Yes. Was the event from a major promotion with major fighters? Yes and yes. Is the event covered in non-MMA specific sources? Yes, such as USA Today. Is the event's subject matter encyclopedic? Yes, as it is featured in at least two printed encyclopedias available through major retailers. You frankly have no real argument for red linking and it is borderline offensive to waste our time in this manner. --172.129.97.239 (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC) — 172.129.97.239 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I have no doubt as a sporting event this received lots of coverage in lots of mainstream publications but WP classifies that sort of coverage of sports events as routine (see WP:NOTNEWSPAPER), that includes such sources that "detail the results of every MMA fight in history" (the MMA Encyclopedia), in order to demonstrate that this article should be in Wikipedia it needs to be demonstrated that it does not fail the WP:NOT policy. Again at the risk of repeating myself, Wikipedia "is also not an indiscriminate collection of information or a news service" (taken from WP:EVENT) and it goes on and says "not every incident that gains media coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article". What is needed here is not the routine sports announcements and results, but sources that detail why this event was significant and what lasting effect it had. If you actually read the article as it exist now, there is not even an un-sourced claim to any significance, all that exists is four lines of text, the results and details of performers wages, so any claim to any lasting significance is not actually reflected in the article. Mt king ^(edits) 09:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Event is notable, first UFN, second-ever free UFC show, etc. It passes WP:GNG and WP:MMAEVENT.
LlamaAl (talk) 16:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saying it is notable does not make it so, every professional sports game/match/meet/event gets enough routine coverage in the press to pass WP:GNG, however that does not make the event worthy of encyclopedic note. The sources provided do not demonstrate what sets this event up over the countless other sporting events that happened that Saturday in the rest of the US or world. Mt king ^(edits) 18:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saying it is not notable does not make it so. This event is notable because it is the first Ultimate Fight NIGHT, the second-ever free show, is from the largest and most significant MMA organziation in the world, featured fights by major athletes, is covered in multiple reliable sources for these reasons, which means if you actually read the sources, it clearly passes the WP:GNG per WP:SENSE. A once in a blue moon televised event and the first one of its kind is simply not analogous to weekly sporting events. We are not talking about the NFL which has multiple teams compete every week during a season. We are talking about the first ever televised event of a league that does not have multiple events a day like the NFL, MLB, NBL et al do. You are comparing apples to watermellons!! --172.129.97.239 (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is that the article and subject fails the policy on what is and what is not included on WP, just having enough routine coverage to pass WP:GNG is not a guarantee of a subjects sutability for inclusion as is made clear on the WP:N page when it says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not.." (my bold), this nomination is based solely on the fact this article fails that "What Wikipedia is not" policy as it does not demonstrate what significance it had outside of those directly involved. Mt king ^(edits) 09:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is significant to those uninvolved. Anywhere. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:34, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Over the weekend, I saw the excellent film Silent Hill: Revelation 3D (don't take my word for it, just see it yourself!) and so was feeling pretty good until I stumbled upon this farce here! :( As such, yeah, I agree with a speedy keep of the article and emergency topic ban of Mtking from MMA related AfDs per LlamaA1. --BStudent0 (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC) — BStudent0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Block-evading sock of Special:Contributions/63.3.19.129 and sock-puppet of User:Mdtemp (school) as well. See SPI. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep .. Per all above. Miufus (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC) Sock-puppet of LlamaAl; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BStudent0. Tijfo098 (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG what more is there to discuss. ScottMMA2 (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everything above. Longterm significance is adequately illustrated in this later review ^[6]. (First of many, Salaverry's last hurrah). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

411mania is a collection of unpaid blogers (see here) and is not a reliable source. Mt king ^(edits) 07:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ Nate Quarry talks MMA Uncensored Live and the next stage of his career by Brian Hemminger (mmamania.com) on Feb 22, 2012
^ Nate Marquardt Signs With Strikeforce, Likely to Face Tyron Woodley for Welterweight Title by Bryan Robison (mmafrenzy.com) on Feb 21, 2012
^ Trembow, Ivan (2005-08-08). "Monday, August 08, 2005". Ivan's Blog. Retrieved 2012-10-27.
^ Trembow, Ivan (2005-08-10). "Ultimate Fight Night Draws a 1.5 Rating, Topping NFL Pre-Season Football and X-Games". MMAWeekly.com. Ivan's Blog. Retrieved 2012-10-27.
^ Gross, Josh (2005-08-09). ""Ultimate Fight Night" No. 1 Saturday Night". Sherdog.com. Retrieved 2012-10-27.
^ 411mania review

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources in article don't seem to satisfy requirements of in depth coverage or don't appear independent and reliable. --Nounique names 16:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to in depth coverage in reliable published sources noting the long-term significance of the event and its notability to the sport. I have updated the article accordingly, but based on a source suggested in the discussion above, I found that in a published book, an encyclopedia, no less, the main event is considered "one of the worst fights of all time". An event that features an "of all time" kind of fight as mentioned not on a mere blog, but in published book is by definition notable. The fact that it is described as such in a print encyclopedia is by definition an example of being encyclopedic. I think someone above does make a further good point about how it does not make sense that it betters Wikipedia by redlinking UFC Ultimate Fight Night and keeping this discussion instead. That narrow-minded reading of our admittedly Byzantine and constantly evolving policies and guidelines would be like saying that this discussion serves more relevant purpose to the world than keeping Resident Evil 6 for public consumption. It would be like saying that this aforementioned game has received the same routine coverage that any new game in that franchise gets from video game sites, etc., while ignoring that it is also covered in publications that may not have articles readily available online. Given the significance of the UFC, their events are also covered in print magazines and journalism that might not always show up on a Google search, which for anything, whether it be video games or sporting events a lot of times might turn up mostly blogs and the like in the first pages of results, but that does not mean that the sources do not exist. And nor does it mean that the game or major event is not important. The first televised program of the world's leading promotion is inherently notable. It was watched by thousands of people internationally. Because star fighters competed, it is still discussed discussed in articles about these fighters' careers as it has undeniably influenced their careers, just as it is historically important for the world's leading MMA promotion. Again, the information is clearly verifiable and so just as in the case of Resident Evil 6, I do not see how we benefit civilization by getting rid of a factually verifiable article concerning a televised event from the world main MMA promotion on which fighters who competed for championships participated, but we would instead preserve for posterity a discussion about that article thereby taking up even more harddrive space than something that is at least useful to someone?! Honestly, it just does not make any sense. --Morphed Editor (talk) 20:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sock of User:A Nobody Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SNOW. This event is clearly notable as supported by numerous reliable sources. The nominators repeated attacks on others in this discussions just reveals his desperation and fanaticism. Moreover, his comments are flat out lies and no matter how many times he repeats the lie it doesn't make it false. Also, I don't get what's with striking comments? If this is a discussion and not a vote as it says up top, then it matters not how many bold faced deletes or keeps there are. The struck comments all appear to be factually accurate versus the dishonest comments of the nominator. Shouldn't it be much more important that we go with what is true than just trying to silence some people you do not like? --Jeremy Edited Today (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sock of Bstudent0 Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Pretty amusing that this is starting back up again given how miserably it failed last time. These articles which are part of a complete set (linked to player bio's, relevance to other events, etc) are better ref'ed than most in sports yet continue to be the target of a motivated editor. Afd's not in whole (since that would obviously fail), but piecemeal, which obviously ruins the value of the whole; but who's counting since the decisions are made by folks who have limited knowledge of the topic at hand and seem to completely ignore well-reasoned rational arguments. Agent00f (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article still has a relevant assertion of WP:EFFECT: a title shot for one of the highest titles of the organization was given and Marquardt (current Strikeforce welterweight champion and former UFC middleweight title challenger) debuted in the UFC. Poison Whiskey (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rather than reply to each, this is a reply to all those saying passes GNG (or other guideline or essay), please re-read the nomination, this is not about does the article pass the GNG, if you read of the whole of WP:Notability (which is the page WP:GNG redirects to) you will see that the second paragraph says "

A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not (my bold).

This nomination is based on the fact this article is excluded under WP:NOT policy and specifically "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists in the world or has existed" and "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.", and in order to show that this sports event is worthy Encyclopedic note, those advocating for its retention need to show that it has received significant coverage of the event outside of routine reporting of event and its results in reliable and diverse sources, to date that has not been done. Mt king ^(edits) 23:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - UFC Ultimate Fight Night is multiple events over time,[14] originating as early as July 6, 2005.[15] The Wikipedia article is a Wikipedia:Coatrack discussing a mixed martial arts event on August 6, 2005 that does not meet WP:GNG. Given the high level of sock involvement, its better to delete until someone comes along and posts an article on UFC Ultimate Fight Night that meets Wikipedia core content policies. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:57, 3 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The above statement is incorrect, "UFC Fight Night" was a series of events, they are not the same as the "UFC on FOX" events for example. The issue of WP:GNG is not supported given the circumstances of previous editors illustrating notability, and while the sock involvement is unfortunate (and accurate) a poisoned apple does not destroy the vine and the vine in this case is not poisoned. –– Lid^(Talk) 07:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion that notability have illustrated it is not correct, all that exists either here or on the article are links to results, blogs, or pages that mention the event, please post what you think are sources that show non-routine significant coverage of the event. Mt king ^(edits) 08:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Welcome back! I missed the drama you caused last time you were on a crusade, and I'm happy to see that you are back. I have something to entertain me again. So... This is my vote, and this is not a democracy, so I can vote regardless. Mazter00 (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep I believe in the integrity of wikipedia being an objective encyclopedia, and Fight Night is notable enough in the sports world. Let's not rehash arguments months old, only to have the same result. Deleting pages without retaining information and hiding behind wikipedia guidelines (not rules) will only further harm wikipediaAutokid15 (talk) 05:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For anyone not familiar with the _history_ of these deletions, nominator/user MtKing above has been _specifically_ nominating MMA entries to be deleted for an entire year now to approx zero effect. It's been nothing but an atrocious waste of time on everyone's behalf (dozens and dozens of editors) and a blemish on wiki's record for this joke to be allowed to continue. If anything, its only merit is a study of the bureaucratic politics that's the bane of the site's inner circles. Agent00f (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - definitely not routine coverage. See sources above. Nom is an anti-MMA editor who should be ignored (again, as per above). Paralympiakos (talk) 20:16, 11 November 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, Mdann52 (talk) 13:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Organogallium chemistry. MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Organogallium peroxides[edit]

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

As noted at COI, the Organogallium peroxides article largely is the creation of User:Halvagar and the cited sources are papers written by M. R. Halvagar, both having Halvaga in common. User:Halvagar keeps removing tags place on the article.[16] The topic alredy is covered in Organogallium chemistry, and there is no apparent reason to WP:FORK or WP:SPINOUT a Organogallium peroxides article. Delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete and redirect~~Merge with Organogallium chemistry. May be worth placing a semi-protect or temporary full protect on the resulting articles to prevent any vandalism, revert wars or similar. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Overall, I agree with the nominator, but organogallium peroxides are not mentioned in the organogallium chemistry article, so deleting without merging the content is not an option. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, oops. Changed my vote based on this. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - That the article is currently a WP:SELFCITE job (and that Halvagar is not a collaborative editor) doesn't mean the topic is not notable -and indeed there are articles in the literature not authored by mr.Halvagar (e.g. this). I'd say the information he added does not deserve being lost. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Perhaps this is the wrong venue? The issue seems to be one of appropriate style or editorial conduct, not of article content. Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Organogallium chemistry. This doesn't merit its own article; appears to be nothing more than an attempt by the author of a scientific paper to promote himself through WP:SELFCITE. Qworty (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, deletion is over the top, the existing tags on this page should have been sufficient and dealt with: one merge tag and one note-of-tone tag. The article creator should be given an opportunity to improve on the article V8rik (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the editor who created this needs the additional guidance of working with the existing editors at the main article in order to temper his self-promotional tendancies. If the section for peroxides becomes unruly, it could be spun back out. Gigs (talk) 14:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article now contains a section on organoaluminum peroxides, which, if merged, will need to be split and merged to organoaluminum chemistry - or perhaps both should be merged to organometallic chemistry in a new section: "Peroxides"? Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Innovation journalism[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Outcome of the last nomination was "no consensus" with a invitation to resubmit. Having gone through my watch list I have reexamined the matter, and I feel that the flagrant conflict of interest by the more or less sole author of the article calls for blowing it up at the very least. It is promotional, and even the third party references (e.g. this Ziff-Davis article) give me the uneasy feeling that, as a term, it doesn't actually mean anything. At the very least we need an article written from third party sources by, well, third parties. Mangoe (talk) 13:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has received significant coverage across a multitude of independent reliable secondary sources, including books and media sources, see for example (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). — Cirt (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a source, that's a template. Do you have a specific source in mind as an example? I did the Googles, and what I found was that material was heavily masked by the coincidental juxtaposition of the two words. Most of the rest of the material seemed to be written by the article's author or his institutions. Mangoe (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully disagree, it's quite easy to see, from clicking on the template, that there's significant coverage from multiple sources of the phrase itself, not just incidental of the two words, and from multiple different independent authors, particularly in books. — Cirt (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I said, I didn't interpret the results that way. But even so, the current article, having been written almost entirely by the originator of the term, is unacceptably contaminated with COI. Mangoe (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but that's not reason to delete the entire article. It's a reason to clean it up for sure, but not to delete the entire thing outright. — Cirt (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cirt. Yeh, the concept is notable and has received significant coverage, especially looking at books. Article probably needs to be rewritten, but AfD is not cleanup. Cavarrone (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have been involved with the Innovation Journalism Program at Stanford and especially for Pakistan, we have seen a significant improvements in the quality and approach of the journalists towards innovation. ^[1] and ^[2] The Pakistan INJO Program was designed to create value for the journalists to better understand innovation and competitiveness related issues by the Competitiveness Support Fund and later on acknowledged by the industr itself^[3]

The Voice of America, Urdu Service did an exclusive interview of Amir Jahangir on the impact of the Innovation Journalism on the Pakistani information ecosystem^[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajjano (talk • contribs) 11:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nagar Valley[edit]

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

Should be merged with Nagar(princely state) or the Hunza-Nagar District articles. 3 articles on the same topic seems quite too much TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is not synonymous with the district or state. There are enough references and information[17][18] to satisfy WP:GEOLAND and even a bit of news ("Kohistan massacre: Elders of Shia-dominated Nagar valley protect 35 Sunni labourers"). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The three articles named (Nagar (princely state), Hunza-Nagar District, and Nagar Valley) are disorganized and overlapping, but they are about three distinct concepts: the former political entity, the current administrative division, and the physical feature. Nagar Valley should be pared down to geographical content. The Interior (Talk) 08:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete: G7 author requested deletion

Sexersize[edit]

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

I was the author of this test article. Please delete this immediately. TheKaramanukian (talk) 10:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luisah Teish[edit]

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

I haven't been able to uncover any evidence of notability in terms of WP:AUTHOR or WP:BK. Where is the WP:42? Her writing has not been covered in WP:RS. There are a few hits on bookseller sites, but as we all know, that in itself will not satisfy WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, or WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 10:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete No references to establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability: existence is verified by the published books, but is not enough. PamD 15:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - when the nominator says they have been unable to find any evidence of notability, I wonder where they have been looking. GScholar shows one 1988 book, Jambalaya, as cited over 100 times, and other GScholar and GBooks results suggest that many of those citations seem to be by what we would standardly regard as reliable sources. If any of her other work had received a comparable level of attention, I would regard this as a definite keep. It looks likely that this is not the case, which means that while she has some notability, it may well not be enough. But I may have missed something. PWilkinson (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fulfills WP:Author, WP:Prof, and most importantly, the GNG. I was able to find the following:

In-depth interview which mentions her book Jambalaya: Laura Casey. "There's magic between plants, food and beauty." Oakland Tribune. Alameda Newspaper Group. 2006. HighBeam Research. 17 Nov. 2012 <http://www.highbeam.com>.
Full review of Carnival of the Spirit: "NEW IN PAPERBACK." The Washington Post. Washingtonpost Newsweek Interactive. 1995. HighBeam Research. 17 Nov. 2012 <http://www.highbeam.com>.
Mentions in off our backs and the Journal of Haitian Studies
Significant mention in a gender studies reference book, Women and New and Africana Religions

The Steve 09:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to integrate these sources into the article but there is little to work with. The "in-depth interview" isn't very in-depth, says very little about her. The WashPost is a brief notice, a short paragraph along with many other books not really a review. Being "mentioned" in the other sources isn't much to go on, per WP:WHYN need "significant coverage". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Teish is one of the best known authors in her field, and published by such major presses as Harper Collins. The article can use some work, but nthe subject is absolutely notable.Rosencomet (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Teish is one of the most notable authors in her field. She is one of the authors in the Sage Woman magazine and has taught at many of the Universities in California. Here is a link for Sonoma State University where she is noted as a lecturer for the psychology department, https://www.sonoma.edu/Psychology/spirit.htm. Here is a link to a documentary that has her interviewed and that is cited on the website, http://www.nfb.ca/film/goddess_remembered/. Here is a link to indicate her performances at the San Francisco State University's Poetry Center's Women Working in Literature conference in 1985 and 1987, http://www.sfsu.edu/~poetry/archives/t.html. Most recently she has the keynote speaker for this years Earth Medicine Alliance annual conference. Links to this information can be found on their website. http://earthmedicine.org/2012-conference-celebrating-ancestral-wisdom/ and she recently did workshops for the Earth and Spirit Council, http://www.earthandspirit.org/NaturalWay2/NWspeakers/Luisah-Teish-20111021.htm. in 2012 the anthology Shades of Faith was also listed on the Huffington Post as one of the 27 books that every Pagan should have on their shelf, Luisah Teish is published in this book, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/31/pagan-books-27-essential-_n_1556931.html#s1036941&title=Shades_of_Faith. This is one of the most notable artists, writers and lecturers around. Personal vendettas should be put aside. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrystalBlanton (talk • contribs) 06:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at WP:42, for the notability guideline in a nutshell. Much of what you cite is primary sourcing, when it's secondary sourcing that's required to establish notability. A few of the items on your list are secondary, but a blog announcing an appearance at a conference is not a very weighty secondary source. Qworty (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He cited primary sources. All my sources are good, including the Washington Post, the Oakland Tribune, and the (discontinued) magazine off our backs. The Steve 07:19, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources need to say something about the person (see above). There is very little information about her from the secondary sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per The Steve. Nominator's claim that no evidence of notability exists is plainly false and indicates failure to properly examine underlying issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability implied by her publications is confirmed by interviews and prominent mentions in: Spiritual Interrogations: Culture, Gender, and Community in Early African American Women's Writing by Katherine Clay Bassard (Princeton University Press 1999); Dream-Singers: The African American Way with Dreams by Anthony Shafton (Wiley 2002); Embracing the Witch and the Goddess: Feminist Ritual-Makers in New Zealand by Kathryn Rountree (Routledge 2003). And in being cited as an authority in: A Mighty Baptism: Race, Gender, and the Creation of American Protestantism by Susan Juster, Lisa Macfarlane (Cornell University Press 1996); American Voudou: Journey into a Hidden World by Rod Davis (University of North Texas Press 1998); African American Folk Healing by Stephanie Y. Mitchem (New York University Press 2007). First Light (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything in those "mentions" that is "significant coverage"? Our sources are supposed to offer depth about the subject. Per WP:WHYN: "We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." Presently the article is less than a paragraph in length because we have no sources that say any more. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that we need significant coverage enough to demonstrate notability, not "so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic." A stub is fine, if she is shown to be a recognized authority in reliable sources. But here are some passages that might add some biographical info to the article itself:

- - - "Also, a contemporary conjure woman, Luisah Teish, who blends hoodoo with New Age beliefs, writes that perfumed water under the bed, when combined with certain other measures, will “keep dreams clear.” Finally, water can be used to prevent the dream (or dreamlike experience) of being ridden by a witch—the subject of the next chapter. The water either catches the hag, or simply distracts it." from Dream-Singers: The African American Way with Dreams by Anthony Shafton (Wiley 2002). She is also quoted in a few other passages in that book, as a respected authority in the field.
    - "In 1992 Luisah Teish, who is well known internationally in Goddess circles as a writer and ritual-maker, visited New Zealand. Teish is of Yoruba (West African) ancestry, although she was born and raised in New Orleans. She was the guest facilitator at residential weekend workshops in Auckland and Hamilton dedicated to exploring sensuality and creativity in ritual contexts. Her book Jambalaya: The Natural Woman’s Book of Personal Charms and Practical Rituals (1985) is well known among feminist witches in New Zealand." That's from Embracing the Witch and the Goddess: Feminist Ritual-Makers in New Zealand by Kathryn Rountree (Routledge 2003).
    - In Culture, Curers, and Contagion: Readings for Medical Social Science she has a short article that is part of the book, by Norman Klein, ed., Culture, Curers, and Contagion: Readings for Medical Social Science (Novato, CA: Chandler and Sharp, 1979).
    - "Luisah Teish, a priestess in Lucumí..." from African American Folk Healing by Stephanie Y. Mitchem (New York University Press 2007), where she is quoted as an authority.
    - "Luisah Teish, a Yoruban priestess who began teaching in 1977, and author of Jambalaya ( 1985), was one of the women who came on...." from Greta S. Gaard, Ecological Politics: Ecofeminists and the Greens (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1998), where Teish is described as an authority.
    - "Another well-known practitioner is Luisah Teish, author of Jambalaya...." also demonstrating authority in the field (referring to "New Orleans practitioners of voodoo"). from Anthony B. Pinn, Varieties of African American Religious Experience (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998).

She is also cited as an authority in another dozen or so academic book house writings. It's obvious that she is a recognized authority. How much of a biographical wikipedia article can be written is another subject, but not one for AfD. I wish I had more time to research and add to the article, but I hope that I've provided some leads for those who are interested in improving the article. First Light (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another bit of bio info I missed: "On her part, the African American performer, writer and ritualist Luisah Teish believes that the contact with one's ancestress provided by Vodou encourages feminist spirituality in that women who aspire to become mambos, or priestesses, cement the matrilinear tradition by constructing a communal image of the feminine:" (followed by quote from Teish). Emanuela Maltese, ""What Is the Truth?": Ezili, or the Power of Feminist Love," Journal of Haitian Studies 16, no. 1 (2010), http://www.questia.com/read/1P3-2078983621. First Light (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First Light, something can be notable but not qualify for a standalone article if there is not enough sources of "significant coverage". In this case we are seeing many small 'mentions' of her, suggesting notability, but nothing really of significant coverage. So according to WP:WHYN it would be redirected somewhere. However, I think you found some decent sources and I'll try to wring water from stone so we can get at least a paragraph about her by combining all these sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. If something is notable, it qualifies for a standalone article. Period. What you are talking about is not enough source material to make more than a stub. There are several solutions, including 1. leave the stub (stubs aren't bad), and 2. merge it somewhere, but deletion is not one of them. That is not the case for this particular article, however. There is more than enough secondary sourcing to make a respectable biography. Never mind. I see you've wrung some water from the stone ;) Cheers. The Steve 02:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Green Cardamom, I agree with you — there is much about the subject that might be borderline notability, with few books or articles entirely about her. But she is quoted, mentioned, and cited as an authority by so many academic writers that there is some notability, and is worth of a Wikipedia article, in my opinion. I sincerely appreciate what you're saying, along with your efforts to improve the article, even though you don't completely agree with the 'keep's. First Light (talk) 02:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a good Google Book Preview source for biographical material: White Fire: A Portrait of Women Spiritual Leaders in America, which has a chapter on her. It might not be a high quality Reliable Source showing notability, but for good bio info it suffices. First Light (talk) 05:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is much too short and needs to be expanded, but this person is quite notable and certainly should be mentioned in Wikipedia. Folklore1 (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Category:Visa requirements by nationality. MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Visa policy of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines[edit]

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

This page seems completely non-notable, with no possibility of ever becoming otherwise. — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 09:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge per the proposal below - this is barely worth even a passing mention in the main Saint Vincent and the Grenadines article itself, let alone its own article. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Merge, per the proposal below. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Not much content, so that rules out a merge. Title is not a likely search term, so that rules out a redirect. Thus, delete it without merging or redirecting.--xanchester (t) 20:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Do we need a guideline or have a precedent about visa policies? It's useful to somebody, and won't hurt the Project to keep it here, but it's not especially encyclopedic. Bearian (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the articles in Category:Visa requirements by nationality are short enough that they could be merged into a single article. I wouldn't oppose merging the visa requirements of Caribbean countries together. --xanchester (t) 17:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea: let's merge them. Bearian (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Farm Group (neé The Farm Group (2))[edit]

Advanced search for:
"The Farm Group"

In books/documents
Google Books · Questia Internet Archive · WorldCat

In the news
Google News: recent · archives Questia · New York Times Los Angeles Times Wall Street Journal · Washington Post Financial Times · BBC News The Age · The Hindu News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals and reference works
Google Scholar: academic · legal Microsoft Academic: new · original Oxford Reference · JSTOR PUBMED Central · Questia HighBeam · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages
Google Web Search · Advanced Search Searx 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 Bing · DuckDuckGo · Startpage Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast

Images (free)
Google · Flickr

More
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources The Wikipedia Library

Looks to me like a big advertisement. The Banner _talk 08:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MOVED to The Farm Group. --Nounique names 18:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It needs an extensive rewrite, but the company looks notable enough to me. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is not a big advertisement. Every fact listed in the article is a direct quote from a number of British based highly recognised journalistic sources. The Farm Group is a well known and popular company which has a huge historical public interest within the British media industry. Also, I don't understand why the reviewer of this article deleted my comments on his talk page addressing this issue without responding to me with any advice whatsoever, this makes me think the reviewer is just unfairly reviewing articles. I have now added links to the page so that is is not an orphan and am currently in the process of fixing the link problems. Agk1987 (talk) 11:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What nonsense are you rambling now? The text is still there, but because you failed to put a header on it, I did that. Perhaps it is to difficult to understand a header "Farm Group"? Ow, and please tell the people you are the author. Next point: is User:Agk1987 identical to User:Aganlykesington. And are you both somehow (professionally?) involved in The Farm Group? The text on the talkpage of the artcle (yes, I removed it from the article itself) suggests that. The Banner _talk 18:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have no idea what you are talking about. This is my first go at writing an article so obviously there are some things that i'm going to be unsure of doing. And the reason I have two profiles is because the other one took forever took too long to be looked at and I am doing this as part of a university project. I have tried to delete the other account but am not sure how to. As for the text on the talkpage, I was actually told to do that by a reviewer in the live chat/help area of Wikipedia, he wrote it and told me to copy and paste it into the top of the article to help people such as yourself with reference checking. Agk1987 (talk) 10:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Plus ten marks for not hiding who you are. But minus several thousand for the disingenuous "no idea what you are talking about" and "part of a university project". You've disclosed your conflict of interest as a paid advocate. Don't think that the rest of the world is stupid, and cannot see with our own eyes that your claims are false. People can put two and two together to make four, and thinking that they cannot has been the downfall of more than one paid advocate in history.
      For your information, The Banner: Ashley Ganly-Kesington (according to xyr several CVs on the WWW) is a PR officer and publicist at The Farm Group.
      Uncle G (talk) 10:43, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Indeed, the Linkedin-page popping up on this name is extemely revealing. The Banner _talk 17:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aganlykesington The Banner _talk 18:14, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thinking about this, why is it located at "The Farm Group (2)" and not "The Farm Group"? If we keep the article, a move is in order, I would say. Lukeno94 (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I did try to do list as the correct The Farm Group but was unsure of how to. Thanks for changing. Agk1987 (talk) 10:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moved - I moved this page from The Farm Group (2) to the more logical The Farm Group. --Nounique names 18:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - just went through and removed the completely and utterly pointless links that littered the article, and categorized it. Still needs an extensive rewrite though! Lukeno94 (talk) 10:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the company may be notable, Wikipedia:CSD#G11 allows an article to be deleted if it would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. I think it's best to delete this and start over. Ryan Vesey 22:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Vesey - unsalvageably corrupt. I also don't think that, under the circumstances, the author ought to be a part of this conversation, which is a part of Wikipedia governance. His vote should be discounted. Herostratus (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a mess. Time to use some TNT--Müdigkeit (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I declined this article recently at AfC, because though the aurthor had done a lot of diligent work to provide plenty of reliable journalistic news sources, there were no general news coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. While The Farm Group seems to be well known in its own limited sphere, that wouldn't make it notable enough for Wikipedia. However, one decent general news source might change my mind. Granted, the article needs a lot of cleanup and wasn't really ready for mainspace! The author can restore the draft at AfC and work on it, if they wish. Attacking the author seems to be extremely bitey, even if they do have a COI!! Sionk (talk) 18:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anosh Sheytan[edit]

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

On notability grounds - PROD was deleted without explanation. Not exceptional as either martial artist or comedian. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 06:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly does not meet the notability criteria for martial artists at WP:MANOTE or for entertainers at WP:ENT. Mdtemp (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the previous editors. He fails both WP:ENT and WP:MANOTE. In addition, the only reference used in the article is from a 1 year old MMA website and I'm not sure that it can be considered a reliable source. Papaursa (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete Not notable. --Shorthate (talk) 15:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monte Plaisance[edit]

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

Although this article was accepted at AfC I do not think anything here amounts to notability. Essentially everything is unsourced with the only outside sourcing being the ACLU section. DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Outside sourcing includes more than the ACLU section. The Witchcraft Museum is sourced to viable and reputable sources newspaper and online sources, the early life section is sourced to legitimate magazine articles and the rest is sourced to Plaisance's own written books and online forums, all of which are reputable. JAuthement (talk) 14:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His books and forums are not reliable to our standards. --Nounique names 19:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG, but pare it back severely if RS cannot be found for the majority of the text. --Nounique names 19:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. The bulk of it appears sourced, but the sourcing is thin and false, with instances of WP:SELFCITE. Qworty (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see two paths to notability but neither are strong enough.

1. ALCU lawsuit. This has a number of very good sources. However it's a single event (WP:1E) so we need reliable sourcing for something else..

2. Notable in the Wiccan community. According to the Gale Encyclopedia of the Unusual and Unexplained (2003), under the entry for "People of Wicca" (pg. 75), under the sub-heading for "Raymond Buckland", Plaisance is mentioned in passing because Buckland sold a New Orleans Wicca museum to Plaisance. And that's it. There are similar brief mentions in local newspapers as the owner of the museum. But owning a museum is not enough. I can't find other sources about Plaisance that show notability, or provide information to write an article with (can't use material written by Plaisance since Wikipedia relies on independent secondary sourcing). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rich King (sportscaster)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The article has had zero third-party sources that establish any notability for over two years, and searching online has yielded none either. The article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. - Sudo Ghost 05:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Typically, I would vote to delete a weekend sports anchor. In this case he has won some regional awards. I am not sure that these are sufficient to pass WP:N. I am inclined to think so, but am hesitant. They must be properly sourced for me to endorse a keep.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a ref for the Emmy. (He actually won in 1998, not 1996.) I don't think a local Emmy alone would be enough to establish notability, since so many awards are handed out. But it's better than nothing. The full list of winners (going back to the 1950s) is available here: [19]. Zagalejo^^^ 08:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His book My Maggie did receive some national attention ([20], [21]), and there are plenty of Chicago-area sources to help flesh out the details of his broadcasting career. Zagalejo^^^ 07:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The MSN source would establish notability for a book, not the author. The second source is too trivial to establish any notability at all. - SudoGhost 05:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - In past AFD discussions, press coverage of a book was understood to confer notability upon the author. (That book/author distinction is particularly difficult to make in this case, since My Maggie is largely autobiographical.) And to clarify, the second link is just an abstract; I found the full article here, and while not substantially longer, it goes beyond "trivial", IMO. Anyway, when I add all the little things up, I'm content with keeping an article on King. Zagalejo^^^ 06:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not aware of any such prior consensus, but WP:AUTHOR makes no such concession and what has been written on the subject of notability being conferred specifically says that "notability is not inherited up". As an author, the article's subject fails WP:AUTHOR. As a general person, the article's subject fails WP:BASIC. An article or two on a book does not make the author notable. The article does not meet any of the criteria given by any relevant notability guidelines, - SudoGhost 06:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, I've said what I want to say. WP:NOTINHERITED and the other guidelines are open to some interpretation, and I happen to think the sources available are good enough. I'll let others chime in. Zagalejo^^^ 07:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Where are these past AfD discussions you are referring to? You've said what you wanted to say, but you haven't backed up those claims. As is stands, what you've said runs contrary what Wikipedia consensus on the matter and every single notability guideline. - Sudo Ghost 17:17, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, I tried looking, but I can't immediately find an AFD that is an exact parallel to this one. In the specific discussions I had in mind, the writers also had entries in Gale's Contemporary Authors. Still, WP:AUTHOR does say, "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Which, as I see it, says that an author can draw notability from the material they write. Of course, there are several words in that quoted sentence alone that are open to interpretation ("significant", "well-known", "subject", "multiple", etc). It's possible for different people to come to different conclusions as to what all that means. That's why AFDs can be closed as "no consensus".
        
        Since you drew me back into this discussion, I will clarify that I don't think King's notability comes solely from My Maggie. He's also been a sportscaster in a major metropolitan area for several decades, and one can find information on his news career from the various Chicago newspapers. (And not just the Tribune, which I know is associated with WGN. The rival Sun-Times has reported on King, as well, and I did try to throw in a few such references into the article. I won't claim that those references are major biographical pieces, but they do provide enough info for us to piece together where he has worked over the years.) Zagalejo^^^ 01:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zagal. TBr and ley 05:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) AutomaticStrikeout 21:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of April Jones[edit]

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

Meets NOTNEWS and RECENTISM, fails WP:PERSISTENCE, fails WP:CRIME. This entire case caused a local stir, but was over and done with in the span of a week, and there has been no significant further coverage since. MSJapan (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This case has yet to come to court, but is sufficiently notable for an article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rare instance where a murder charge has been brought without the presence of a body, which makes this case notable. Paul MacDermott (talk) 09:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The event is definitely notable, despite the case not coming to court quite yet - and I'm fairly happy that the tone of the article is as neutral as it's possible to be about such a situation. Plenty of good sources as well. It was also more than a "local stir" - it was a national one. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this story is not over since the trial of the defendant will take place in 2013, so the argument based on Wikipedia:Notability (events) is misplaced without having to rely on WP:CRYSTAL-reasoning. It led to more than merely "local stir", as a read of the article and its sources will show. This is an article about the disappearance, search and murder charge, so I'm slightly puzzled by the reference to WP:CRIME which tells us when not to have a biographical article about the victim, since we don't. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the largest media stories of the last few months. Never out of the British national media for days on end. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - story is not over. and to be frank the nominator is wrong about WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:CRIME just like the similar AfD by the nominator on Death of Tia Sharp. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is part of an mass-AfD by the nominator, if that is good or bad I will leave up to you to decide. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

REname to Murder of April Jones. This case was widely covered in the media, with masses of people engaged in search operations. Though these have not produced her body, a man has been arrested for murder. WE need to keep this at least until we have the outcome of a trial. That is the time to judge this, but I suspect that we will want to keep it. Cases like this tend to get cited in the press periodically, so that it is useful to have a WP article that people can consult when it is alluded to. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a non-starter per WP:BLPCRIME. The article would keep this title unless there was a conviction by a jury.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously notable based on press coverage. Everyking (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The story is not even yet over. -- KC9TV 03:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep - We don't have a specific policy or guideline for such "Death of X" stories, other than the usual caveats about WP:NOTNEWS. So we have to rely on a "feel" for whether this story will likely continue to dominate the news or lead to legal precedent, both of which are subjective tests. Those givens, I am leaning towards a keep on this case, based on what appears to be continuing coverage of the story. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take that back, partially; see Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Crime_victims_and_perpetrators and User:Paul MacDermott/Articles concerning criminal acts. Bearian (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/april-jones-search-expected-end-weeks-040743576.html;_ylt=AlB_JHqUkc.Gl.Y03yRUpCbp0Mh_;_ylu=X3oDMTR1Z2MxcjF2BGNjb2RlA3ZzaGFyZWFnMnVwcmVzdARtaXQDTmV3cyBmb3IgeW91IFJIIGNvbCBvbiBuZXdzBHBrZwMyN2M5NjE5Ny0yY2FjLTM3MTgtYTdkNC04MTQ0ZmQ4NjQ4MGIEcG9zAzIEc2VjA25ld3NfZm9yX3lvdQR2ZXIDOGJiYmYxMTMtMmYwOC0xMWUyLWJlZGItMTgyNDY5MzVjNTA5;_ylg=X3oDMTJqajhqZWtxBGludGwDZ2IEbGFuZwNlbi1nYgRwc3RhaWQDN2RiZTMwMGUtNTUxYS0zNTRhLTk2NzEtMjg0YzBjZTRhNmViBHBzdGNhdAMEcHQDc3RvcnlwYWdl;_ylv=3 This case is coming to a close and let's face it, WP:NOTNEWS, The media dropped 'Disappearance of Megan Stammers' as soon as it got cold and I've heard nothing of this for a few weeks until about now when I saw this on Yahoo which shows that it's going to follow the same route as the one I mentioned before. And since it's apparently breaking four rules it's good to get out. Your friendly Wikipedia prefect :) - (I can haz Cheezburger?) 15:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very different case. Nobody ever thought Megan Stammers was dead, just that she'd run away, which turned out to be the case. April Jones, however, is almost certainly dead, many people spent days looking for her body, and a man was charged with her murder soon after her disappearance despite her body not being found. That is very, very rare. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The parallel with Megan Stammers is incorrect, as she turned up safely. April Jones has not yet been found, and a man has been charged with her murder. Read the article first, folks.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Marxist Tendency[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NGO, WP:ORG and WP:N. Notability not established. Most sources are from In Defence of Marxism website (marxist.com) or from webpages that are affiliated with the organisation or its national sections meaning the article relies heavily on sources close to the subject, none of the remaining sources independently verify the notablity of the IMT itself, entire sections of the article (Theory and Tactics) consist of original research. Most of the article is basically a linkfarm to websites belonging to the IMT's national affiliates.No improvements to the article since the 1st nomination in May. Previous AFD was the subject of off-wiki canvassing. Downwoody (talk) 04:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Downwoody (talk) 04:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are currently three independent sources in the article ([22], [23], [24]) which combined have enough coverage to establish notability. Additional sources can be found, especially if one does limit one's search to English-language sources. Here are a few Spanish-language news articles: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. 99.224.73.231 (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note editor 99.224.73.231 has only made 4 edits, 3 are to this discussion and 1 is to the article in question. Mountain Herb (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Link 1 is from a marginal source, the Communist Party of Great Britain, and thereby doesn't establish notability and fails to meet the test of WP:RS since it is by definition a source. Source 2 is actually about Alan Woods but it has only a passing reference to the IMT so it doesn't establish notability either, it fails WP:N's standard that a source to establish notability must provide "significant coverage" ie "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". The Gleaner article 3 is an opinion piece rather than a news item, moreover the article isn't about the IMT and the reference to the organization is rather fleeting. 4 like 1 is about Woods rather than the IMT, the IMT is only mentioned in reference to Woods belonging to it but there's no information about the IMT itself or its notability, it's also not used in the article. The other Spanish sources also do not appear to actually be in the article, the references to the IMT are fleeting and one is about Woods rather than the IMT. Again, article fails WP:N, WP:RS and WP:O and much of it remains unsourced original research. Downwoody (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the independent sources highlighted by IP 99. These at least provide a bare minimum of notability, which I think is sufficient to justify the article's survival in some form. As pointed out in the previous AfD discussion, we should be careful not to erase non-mainstream political viewpoints from Wikipedia. This is an international strand of political thought/activity. There is a strong likelihood there are offline sources that exist, particularly around the time of Militant's split in the early 1990's. The previous AfD recommended a clean-up, though I can't see any evidence one took place. There are definitely parts of the article that currently need pruning if they can't be independently verified. Sionk (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there have been 6 months to clean up the article, it hasn't been done. Speculating about the possible existence of offline sources does nothing to establish notability or reliability, particularly as these supposed sources haven't been found in 6 months. If they appear in the future, if the IMT becomes the subject of reliable sources, academic study etc then by all means create a new article once that happens but the possibility of future notability does not establish notability in the here and now. Downwoody (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Speculating about the existence of sources is part of this process, as per WP:GNG "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." It forms part of having a balanced coverage on Wikipedia that covers things pre-internet. Sionk (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources do not establish notability. Article can be recreated later if the subject ever becomes notable in its own right.Mountain Herb (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The source here: [30] which is referenced in the article is a reprint from a peer reviewed academic journal, Science & Society, that clearly establishes a baseline of notability. The IMT also was peripherally involved with Malala Yousafzai and has appeared in a number of articles discussing her situation ([31], [32]), which are articles that should be worked into the IMT entry. Combined with the earlier-referenced articles, there is a better standard of notability than when the last deletion attempt failed. This process is approaching axe-grinding and should not be coming up every 6 months. Cadriel (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I was able to add in 4 separate and independent references on the IMT and the Malala Yousafzai story which unambiguously mention the IMT's statement. There has been non-trivial coverage of the IMT's statement and this clearly establishes notability for the IMT, as if their well documented role in Venezuela had not already done so. Cadriel (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note the reprint you mentions makes a fleeting reference to the IMT in a footnote where it lists it along with 6 other groups as being present in Venezuela. That seems like a fairly fleeting and trivial reference to me. The references in regards to Malala are also fleeting. Downwoody (talk) 02:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment In this process you are showing a bias that clearly attempts to dismiss the considerable evidence that, in a number of instances, the IMT has received actual coverage from sources outside of left-wing periodicals; and frankly as an article about a left-wing organization, it is ridiculous that we can have this discussion when dozens of other socialist groups have discussed the IMT at considerable length. The in a footnote reference clearly establishes that the IMT is one of several significant political forces in Venezuela, which is corroborated and supported by the various articles about Alan Woods's role with Hugo Chavez. The references to Yousafzai are not "fleeting"; although they are not the centerpiece of the articles, it is a substantial part of each and establishes that the IMT has been a part of this major news story. Cadriel (talk) 09:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Response The references to Yousafzai are not fleeting; however the references to the CWI in the articles about Yousafzai are which is actually the point I was trying to make. Downwoody (talk) 09:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nomination fails BEFORE. Sources can be found. Nom does not have to find them, keep voters do not have to find them, but they are there. Anarchangel (talk) 08:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've been aware of articles about similar groups coming up for deletion before on similar "notability" guide lines (I will only say that it seems to becoming more and more subjective to me). My issues with the assessments for "notability" aside, it seems that we are going too deeply on establishing notability by showing their existence from respectable news articles. As wikipedia does not consider other left-themed news sites as "reliable"- and this is a problem anyways since these parties are so engaged in polemics that they only mention each other in snipes, it would be unfair to fault those contributing to this article in unable to find a detailed article from the New York Times or some other respectable source to establish notability. For what it's worth, I found a op-ed in the economist here mentioning Alan Woods and his relationship to Hugo Chavez, though in an unfavorable light, after a minute of searching. Still, it's not easy. I'm sure there's a similar problem with smaller UK groups, as I know in the US we have many small political groups and parties who have pages here on wikipedia, some many times larger than these smaller fringe groups, rarely get a mention in 'respectable' press. I could understand deleting a wikipedia article about a political party consisting of two dudes and their goldfish, but the IMT seems to be a respectable size when considering the plethora of socialist political parties --MercZ (talk) 02:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The main problem is that the literature on international Trotskyist groups in the 20 or so years that the CMI and then IMT have existed as separate political entities from the CWI has been thin, so we're stuck relying on things like newspaper articles about the IMT's activities in Venezuela and Pakistan to establish a standard that, as you correctly point out, is entirely too subjective. The other problem is that the group has changed its name from CMI to IMT, and that like most socialist international organizations a lot of the coverage tends to name either its main leaders (Grant and Woods in this case) or its national sections. But on the face of it, this is a group that is written about and is not just two men and a dog, which some "internationals" really are. As such this AfD deserves to fail and the nominator should stop bringing it up. Cadriel (talk) 11:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the problem is that notability is subjective and in cases like this political. For socialists the IMT is obviously notable as are many other socialist groups and their associated international organisations. As a punter who mostly uses Wikipedia as a reader I would say the same applies for other "minority interests". I could quite easily create around 500 or so entries for prehistoric monuments on Dartmoor in South West England and pass the notability tests as I could pass the notability test by giving several references to each cairn or cist on Dartmoor from scientific papers - I run a website (http://www.dartmoorwalks.org.uk/) that lists most of them - but would any sane human agree that they are notable? No - all but a few are so obscure that they should not appear in an encyclopaedia (I think there are a couple currently on Wikipedia). So listing an obscure cairn that is irrelevant to anybody would potentially meet the criteria but an entry for a major leftist international organisation is deemed to be problematic because the bourgeois press rarely mentions such organisations and it is rare for academic journals to discuss such organisations. The problem is that if there is a lack of independent references in scientific/academic journals or mainstream media then the subject under discussion struggles to meet the notability criteria. This is loaded as some publications are deemed to be "mainstream" but Leftist publications appear to be excluded and so independent sourcing becomes an issue. The danger of this process is to censor minority views and organisations because they are not discussed in the mainstream press. Of course those prehistoric monuments I mentioned are rarely mentioned in the mass media either but instead they are referred to in journals that deal with that specific subject matter i.e. archaeological journals relating to Dartmoor. The problem is we are told that the equivalent of peer papers or publications in the context of Left organisations cannot be used - which creates an impossibly high bar. It is OK to use archaeological journals as sources for archaeological sites but apparently it is not OK to use Marxist sources (independent of the organisation in question) as sources for Marxist organisations. This appears to me to be a politically biased process. DartmoorDave (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Tia Sharp[edit]

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

The initial no consensus AfD indicated issues of WP:RECENTISM, WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:NOTNEWS. A Google News search today seems to show that those assessments were accurate, as there is nothing of note after the initial flurry of coverage. This is clearly not going to meet persistence, and much of the speculation in the keep votes as to future notability has come to nothing. MSJapan (talk) 04:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete another sad but non notable child murder. not sure why WP fills up with these. fails WP:EVENT and WP:VICTIM as well. LibStar (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

as you want me to basically write an essay about my reasonings at AfDs, the least you could do is to be a bit more precise then "fails...".--BabbaQ (talk) 15:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

how about constantly recycling "keep meets WP:GNG" with no specific reference to the article in question. LibStar (talk) 05:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, like recycling the "Gnews hit" argument without specific references to the hits, and Gnews is not even a reliable tool for coverage of news. And always questioning every single Keep !vote in certain discussion... but not questioning any Delete !votes no matter how weak. But hey who is keeping a count here..--BabbaQ (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm yet to find a delete voter who votes 7 different articles in 10 minutes in identical style, if you find someone doing that for keep or delete let me know. LibStar (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

google news not reliable? Then why does it appear on the AfD template. WP:GOOGLE says "Google News can help assess whether something is newsworthy.". LibStar (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enormous and prolonged coverage in national media. Not an everyday case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - doesnt seem to fail WP:PERSISTENCE. as user Necrothesp states it has recieved enormous and prolonged coverage.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like this AfD is part of a mass-AfD by the nominating user. If thatis good or bad I let you all decide.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This was a heavily reported murder. Due to the slowness of criminal proceedings, we still await a conviction. I do not think we are in a position to judge the merits of the article until the the story is complete. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think a certain amount of WP:NTEMP has been reached here to be honest.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lots of significant coverage on this. Meets WP:GNG. Why do we have to have these debates about every single murder case article? If only we had some proper guidelines it might happen less frequently. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Press coverage indicates notability. Everyking (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The story is not even yet over. -- KC9TV 03:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[N]ot a reason for keeping. There was a spike of coverage in august. LibStar (talk) 10:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the related and similar example of the precedent set at and case of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Disappearance_of_April_Jones says otherwise. -- KC9TV 07:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a time-honoured tradition of people creating new articles about criminal cases receiving media coverage, and then someone coming along and adding an AfD template. This is another example, but it does have enough notability to be worth keeping pending a trial. Paul MacDermott's essay is worth reading, as it could help to prevent this sort of time-wasting AfD.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, see both Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Crime_victims_and_perpetrators and User:Paul MacDermott/Articles concerning criminal acts (noted above). Bearian (talk) 17:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VAGUEWAVE. zero explanation how a guideline and an editor's invented criteria is met. LibStar (talk) 10:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Widely reported in the UK at the time of the disappearance (and coverage will no doubt pick up for any trials). BUT there is absolutely zero evidence of lasting significance or notability, as correctly observed in the nomination. The notability guidelines are clear, despite suggestions that this kind of case is complicated or a 50:50 issue and the apparent fact that some editors like being amateur crime & courts reporters. From the various sections and subpages of the guidelines, including, at no5, from WP:CRIME ...

"Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance"
"Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation. For example, the murder of Adam Walsh ultimately led to the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act"
"Coverage of an event nationally or internationally makes notability more likely, but does not automatically assure it"
"a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article"
"Articles about criminal acts ... particularly those that fall within the category of "breaking news", are frequently the subject of deletion discussions. As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources"

Taken together, the above rather clearly show, first, that we cannot assume notability based on basic contemporaneous media reporting of a tragic incident. Nor has any evidence been presented in any of the above "Keep" comments, or in the article itself, to suggest we have passed the threshold required to rise above that assumption of non-notability, eg in terms of lasting significance. N-HH talk/edits 09:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, it clearly does meet our most important determiner of notability, the General Notability Guidelines! In addition, most crimes do not have the massive national coverage this one has had. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This entire area needs clearer guidelines, otherwise we would always have to wait until after a court verdict to mention any ongoing case or proceedings. I believe that this article will have long term notability, and do not propose yo-yo deletion and recreation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but GNG is the broad headline list of bullet points that briefly set out the basic principles re notability. It explains the bare minimum requirements of notability and is only going to make sense when read with the more specific detail that follows underneath and in the more context-specific sub-pages. Saying "article X meets GNG" – even if it genuinely does, however superficially – isn't the whole answer in every case. I agree that we could do with some more specific guidelines on deaths and murders such as this one, but nonetheless, as noted above, what we do have at the moment is pretty clear in how it qualifies and expands on GNG. It's simply that some people choose to close their eyes to that and obfuscate the issue by claiming that "the rules aren't clear", simply because they like these kinds of articles; and because they've forgotten that WP is meant to be an encyclopedia, not a RECORD OF EVERYTHING THAT HAS EVER HAPPENED or a round-up of media reports on criminal acts and court cases. N-HH talk/edits 11:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Wikipedia has no rules. It has guidelines and policies, which are not the same thing at all, since they are open to wide interpretation. Secondly, of course it isn't meant to cover everything that's ever happened, but it does cover incidents that have had enormous coverage in the national press of a major country. This is not the average run of the mill murder that was covered by a few lines in the national press when it happened and another few when it came to trial. This is a case that was reported in huge detail by every major British media outlet for days on end. That coverage makes it notable and it would be ridiculous if we didn't have an article on it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, given that no one seems to be disputing that the case had coverage, the point at issue is exactly about whether that coverage makes it notable or not. Simply asserting it as a given, again, and characterising any disagreement with that assumption as leading to a "ridiculous" result doesn't make the claim any more correct or refute anything I've said. I've explained why even current WP guidelines – which I never referred to as rules in my own words anyway, not that such semantics have anything to do with the substantive point – seem to count against that conclusion. You will also surely have noted that I did not simply say WP is not meant to cover everything – which was rather obviously a piece of hyperbole, not a point awaiting specific rebuttal – but that it's not meant to be a round-up of media reports on criminal acts and court cases; however prominent those reports might have been for a brief and passing moment in time. It isn't, despite your suggestion to the contrary when you talk about what WP supposedly does do, and no one here or in any of the multiple related discussions of this sort has explained why it should be or where policies or guidelines require it to be. N-HH talk/edits 16:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Paul MacDermott/Articles concerning criminal acts. It is unrealistic to demand an exact knowledge of the outcome of a case before creating an article. Serious cases often take many months to come to court, but that does not make them non-notable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's Paul's take on these things, which he's entitled to, but it's not part of WP policy. And I'm not demanding exact knowledge of the outcome of any trial, I'm simply saying there's no clear evidence of notability as we speak, beyond a flurry of contemporaneous news reports around the time of the disappearance and death (and noting that the media will no doubt resurface with some basic court reporting when the trial comes up). Are you saying that this event isn't yet notable but might be, depending on what happens in the trial, and arguing to keep on that speculative basis? N-HH talk/edits 09:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, we can bend the arguments in any way that fits our own agendas N-HH. But let's wait and see what the outcome of this AfD is. In the end it is community consensus that is important, not to "win the discussion" too often user's seem to forget that AfD's are not a competition.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:37, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, but everyone, on either "side", is going to try and persuade people to their view and/or would prefer the outcome to match their analysis (and I'm not "bending" arguments, I'm quoting from our guidelines). And to take this the other way, community consensus is not about votes, or comparing the number of people who simply say "meets GNG" to the numbers who simply say "does not meet GNG" among the small number who happen to turn up at each individual AFD debate (often the same faces as well when it comes to these crime ones). It's about understanding and applying policy and guidelines – which themselves have been subect to much wider and longer community discussion and which attempt to set some kind of consistent standard – and remembering that we are talking about an encyclopedia, not a round-up of stories that happen to have attracted passing media interest. Even consensus, whether local or more general, can't override that basic pillar. N-HH talk/edits 13:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 20:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Selena Rose[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted in 2011. The new version includes two AVN award nominations from 2012, I declined a G4 on that basis although I agree with the tagger's comment on the talk page that this still fall shorts of WP:PORNBIO. January (talk) 10:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails PORNBIO with a single major individual award nomination. Scene nomination doesn't count. (Would have failed the previous version of PORNBIO too). Fails GNG. My searches found a single non-trivial hit in Google Books, and the publisher is questionable. All AVN hits appear to be press releases. • Gene93k (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - couple of examples of interview coverage by what appear to be reliable (but in-industry) sources here and here. This may be enough to pass WP:GNG depending on one's interpretation, but still not enough for WP:PORNBIO. I think she's on her way to becoming notable, but not there yet. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:28, 3 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 04:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:GNG WP:N WP:PORNBIO PeterWesco (talk) 09:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This person is not yet notable according to WP:PORNBIO. Rhowryn (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 02:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minami Minegishi[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:BAND, WP:V in current form, and has been tagged with ((notability)) for close to five years. Should be fixed (if possible) or deleted. Bjelleklang - talk 13:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, this needs work, but this does strike me as a case of WP:BEFORE. As one of the more popular members of AKB48, Minegishi is all over the Japanese media these days, so there are sources in abundance. I have added two English language sources to start with. Michitaro (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Normally I would suggest a redirect to AKB48, but since there does appear to be a good number of Japanese sources now (although rather recent), that should be good enough. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have expanded the article by adding three more Japanese references from different sources, all national sports newspapers: Sponichi, Nikkan Sports, and Sports Hochi. All have her name in the article title and all are focused on her various activities. With the other English references I added, I believe this is sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Michitaro (talk) 23:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep again. Google translate isn't great with Japanese but enough to show that coverage, although not to great depth, is greater than just announcements and repeats of press releases or self promotional material and there is a lot of it. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 01:30, 12 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 04:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are a lot of AKB48 members and she has been one of the oldest members to stay. She has definitely passed WP:BAND on Criteria Number 2, with her single Give Me Five!. --Bumblezellio (talk) 10:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spirella Girls[edit]

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

Was tagged for notability three years ago. No progress. Same lack of sources at the Swedish page. Spar-stangled (talk) 11:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously. Question the good faith of this, nominator appears to be a disruptive sock puppet, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole. Fancy Smith (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note Fancy Smith also seems to be a sockpuppet of Echigo mole (yes, that is completely within his MO!). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Echigo mole. Mathsci (talk) 09:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are strong indications that a socking game is being played here, however, this article is based solely on a youtube link. My search through google news and books turned up no useful sources for referencing this article, so the AfD should proceed. There is a passing mention to the group on p. 198 here (in a table) and a few more table/list-type mentions plus a whole sentence about the group (p. 13) here saying that Spirella Girls' 1994 song ”Brolin, Brolin” reused the melody of the well-known Jolene (song); the rest of the paragraph is about other interpretations of the Jolene song. Not enough material for WP:BAND in my opinion. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:20, 21 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - wp:gng. end of story.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sources have significant coverage? Tijfo098 (talk) 17:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BabbaQ regularly votes keep per WP:GNG and never provides actual sources. LibStar (talk) 11:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The present article is slightly misleading: Spirella girls is a show/humour gruop rather than a pop group. The have appeared on Swedish national television and radio several times and released records as confirmed by the Swedish national media database [33]. /FredrikT (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is four TV and and 9 radio appearance (in all their history) enough for WP:BAND? It seems a pretty low standard. As far as I can tell they put out only one album. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:32, 4 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. None of the keep voters have provided actual reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 11:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, maybe leaning delete but not seriously - I'm uncomfortable with the general lack of real arguments in this AfD. Actual substantial GNG passing coverage does not seem to have been shown, regardless of whether there was potentially unacceptable motivation for the nomination.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:26, 6 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 04:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - despite the sockpuppet nomination arguably presenting a procedural close option, I'm also not convinced of this band's notability. Cannot find any evidence they ever produced a charted song. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I repeat what I wrote above: Spirella Girls was a show group, not a pop band (though they did have one major record hit as well). Thus it does not seenm fair to base a deletion decision on WP:BAND. /FredrikT (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess by that you mean they did mostly parodies. Did they have other kind of performances besides tracks/videoclips? Tijfo098 (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cybo.com[edit]

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

None of the sources provided prove notability per the guidelines for corporations, nor are they very useful for verification. They are either unreliable (like Crunchbase) or not about the website in question (Seattle PI). Steven Walling • talk 05:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found one good source [34] but we'd need at least one more to establish notability. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not a notable website. One source isn't enough to qualify as significant coverage. The notability of an article must be demonstrated by multiple secondary sources.--xanchester (t) 22:31, 11 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 04:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails Wikipedia:Notability (web) and WP:CORPDEPTH. The link provided above by User:Cerebellum appears to be a promotional press release, or copied from one. Zero results in Google News archive per this search, other than the website itself. Additional searches for news and book sources did not yield coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 02:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nagi no Asu Kara[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to satisfy the notability guideline for unreleased media. Slashme (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there isn't a notability guideline for unreleased media, though WP:NFF is the closes thing we have. But since this upcoming television series is well into production and the VAs are in recording, it very much clears that hurdle. In fact, P.A. Works has already released a promotional video that premiered during the Dengeki 20th Anniversary Festival. While it is a bit early to create the article, I have no doubt that it will receive the significant coverage that all other anime television series of this caliber always receive. So it is very much an article with strong potential. —Farix (t | c) 02:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since this discussion began, more information and external links have been added to improve the article.Therefore, no point in deleting the article.IanRootBeerDubber (talk)
Weak keep - While I would normally want this article be incubated until more information is released, the coverage by Anime News Network is just barely enough for me to think that this is notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Per WP:OUTCOMES. Even if it's deleted/merged for now, it'll be recreated when the anime airs next year.--十八 02:42, 13 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 04:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing gained by deleting this and then having to recreate it in the near future. Production is already underway, and getting coverage. Dream Focus 18:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Turn Of This Century (2012 Movie)[edit]

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

No assertion of notability for as-yet unreleased film. Slashme (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFF and is a clear advert/spam from the director who's probably the article's creator too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment --Tofc888 (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)tofc888--Tofc888 (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Hi, I created the article and I am involved in the project. I don't believe my involvement in the project by nature leads to any breaches of the impartiality guidelines. I posted the article because I felt it may be of interest to people and as someone with knowledge of the project I am one of the few people who could provide this article to Wikipedia users at this time. My intention is to be partial, operate within the content guidelines for Wikipedia and contribute the article as something of value to the platform in general. I reviewed the article further in respect of the comments above and edited it further. I have supported Wikipedia in the past and respect the platform. I also respect the guidelines for unreleased films. The film is being released this week so I felt it appropriate to publish the page at this time.[reply]

Keep and incubate with no prejudice against a subsequent AFD in 6 months time. Article as it currently stands is reasonably impartial and the primary editor has declared an awareness of potential conflict of interest and an intent to avoid any breach of impartiality; assume good faith. I'm more concerned with the content of the "Photography" section, which appears to be more commentary on Life Magazine than on the film in question, but that's an issue for article cleanup, not AFD.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment --Tofc888 (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Hi, I appreciate the comment directly above and respect the suggestion about the content re: The Photography section. I have edited the article further to include a link to the Life Magazine article on Wikipedia from where I had sourced the information in replacement of including the Life Magazine commentary within the body of the subject article - I was in the process of learning how to cite the source so apologies for not having the source properly referenced when I published the article. Seems like the link to the Life Magazine page is more inline with Wikipedia articles. Thanks for the advice on point.[reply]

Comment The one issue that stands out to me is its lack of reliable references/sources that establish its notability. Once secondary sources are added to the page that establish notability according toWP:GNG I would vote to keep.Righteousskills (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in any reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment --Tofc888 (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC) appreciating the guidelines for films include third party coverage I see other entertainment projects like History Channel's "Mankind, The Story of All of Us" published in advance of release and without independent coverage. The external links provided for that article include self created website listing and IMDB listing which is again largely a self created source. Personally, I like being able to access the information about Mankind on Wikipedia and I am sure I will be interested in continuing to see how the article evolves over time on Wikipedia. As our project is just launching and has not yet been seen the most notable fact is that it is the first film of its kind made entirely with still photography that features the iconic photography of Life Magazine. In a similar style, Mankind, The Story of All of Us notes their series is narrated by Josh Brolin - other than that the article appears simply informative that the series is launching on Nov 13/12 on History Channel. I do appreciate the notoriety guidelines serve a purpose and also submit the particulars of The Turn Of This Century satisfy some of those requirements although I must acknowledge we do not yet have third party coverage. Thnx again to all.[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - surely this fails WP:CRYSTAL as it is unreleased at the very least? Completely unsourced anywhere, the only evidence it exists at all is a YouTube trailer. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm concerned about the clear conflict of interest suggested by the sole author's username. --Slashme (talk) 08:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - The author of the article has declared their conflict of interest earlier in this AFD. The article is not overtly worded in a promotional manner. Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines discourages but does not prohibit COI editting. So as far as AFD is concerned, I don't think the COI is a reason for deletion. Of more concern from a deletion standpoint is the complete lack of any sourcing in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - --Tofc888 (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC) - all valid points about the articles shortcomings. Project launch is imminent FYI. Hope to have lots of outside reviews but of course at this time we don't have any. Possibly of relevance on point - there is an article published on Wikipedia about the films composer, Robert MIles. Robert is a very noteworthy and accomplished artist. The article about Robert does include an "unsolicited" small reference to his involvement in our film. thnx much to all.[reply]

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Osasuna VS Calgary[edit]

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

No assertion of notability that I can see. I would speedy, but it's clear a lot of work has gone into this, so it should get a full dicussion. Gigs (talk) 06:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These articles were made in the same spree as Prijatelji (comics). Absolutely no signs of RS after good faith search. It's a shame all of this work went into it. As I said on the other AfD, there appears to be a language barrier, so I'd reconsider if someone can make foreign RS appear, but I doubt their existence. czar · · 06:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Porodični Paket/Extreme Paket (Specijalni broj) should be grouped with this AfD. czar · · 06:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, please consider this AfD to be for all the individual comic articles, I tried to find them all but I may have missed some. There is a separate AfD for the main article on the comic series that should stay separate. Gigs (talk) 07:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the merge—I didn't know AfDs could be combined ex post facto like that czar · · 07:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not a common practice, but I think in this case it's appropriate. We'll just have to consider Hell in a bucket's comment to only apply to the one he commented on unless he comes back to revise it. Gigs (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails GNG per search. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 06:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC) comment was transplanted from AfD for Extreme Packet, may refer to that article only, user has been notified.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 30 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, not notable and no reliable sources found after search. Vacation9 (talk) 18:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is some discussion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prijatelji (comics) with additional info regarding this small press comics. --Stripar (talk) 01:32, 8 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 04:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Mountain Herb (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Zhivago[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Band that appears not to be sufficiently notable to warrant an article. Unsourced. No coverage found. Their one album release didn't appear to receive much/any coverage. There was an ancient VfD for this article but at that time the subject was the fictional musician from A Clockwork Orange. The existence of this article appears to be being used as partial justification for articles on the band members and their subsequent bands. Michig (talk) 10:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Not to be confused with the Canadian band from the 1980s or the later electronica artist. --Michig (talk) 10:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also including the album in this AfD:

--Michig (talk) 10:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE -- if we're going to declare that a punk band that received decent press, reviews, and toured Europe isn't notable because it's been gone for 10 years, we might as well get rid of Frank Sinatra since he hasn't come up with anything new since 1998, or Glenn Miller since 1944, or the Ink Spots, or Mario Lanza. There are a ton of bands and musicians that aren't "notable" that have articles--and some are good articles (Krista Branch, for instance). This band actually was notable when it was around. While we're at it we might as well delete articles on the Roman Empire and Jesus Christ since they haven't done anything for us lately--thus not notable. Sure, the article sucks and offers little, but that's a lack of any work on it (and a call for some punk fan to add something)--not a sign of notability or lack thereof. --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What press and reviews? --Michig (talk) 06:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Krista Branch is notable because she has received plenty of coverage in reliable sources, which is one of our criteria for being notable. The fact that this band has been gone for 10 years is irrelevant - I brought it here because it appears not to come close to meeting any of the criteria set out at WP:BAND and the article completely fails our verifiability policy. --Michig (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 30 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find any trace of the supposed decent press and reviews mentioned by ColonelHenry. A search yielded no notable sources and the article itself doesn't include any. Delete per WP:N. Vacation9 (talk) 18:38, 4 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 04:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of any proof this band is notable. I've added their sole album into this AfD as someone had already tagged it as being part of the AfD without actually linking it - and I agree that it also should be deleted. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am uncertain whether it is either reliable or substantial, but I found this Greek-language page with a brief comment on the band: [35]. Sourcing is made more difficult by the presence of an apparently unrelated Canadian band with the same name (in addition, of course, to the fictional one). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not a reliable source, and certainly not significant coverage. --Michig (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then. Further searching on the album and song titles didn't get me anything that the band-name search missed. Thanks for taking a look at that one page; I didn't have much hopes for it, but figured that I should pass it along for others to review, as it was literally Greek to me. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of soap opera recasts[edit]

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

I'm not sure what the point to this list is. Recasting a character is a basic part of television - this is just dealing with soap operas. This information is already included in the relevant articles on the chartacters themselves. This is a collection of trivia, a trivia list. My view is that this is just WP:LISTCRUFT and it fails number 3 on WP:IINFO - given that the list in incomplete and already extremely long, it can never realistically conform either.Rain the 1 11:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't typical in other TV shows for characters to be recast. It happens in soap operas to the extent that it has become a cliche and joke. postdlf (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Postdlf is right, this happens all the time in soap operas, especially longer running ones. Indiscriminate list. Secret ^account 04:49, 31 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, Postdlf, and Secret. Vacation9 (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This doesn't violate WP:LIST other than needing some style scrubbing. Soap operas are a broad genre so I don't agree with the non-guideline WP:LISTCRUFT classification. If there were a list for each of the soap operas, then we'd have a problem. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 21:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly I rather have a list of soap operas (as long as it has several reliable sources that names it a soap opera) than this list. A list of recasts in a soap opera isn't really a notable topic covered extensively by highly reliable sources other than soap opera magazines which clearly isn't independent of the source. The few ones that might be considered "controversal" in highly reliable sources belongs in the show's page, not its own spinout article. A list of soap operas meets WP:LIST, a list of recasts doesn't meet nearly all of the criteria. Secret ^account 23:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I don't see anywhere in WP:LIST where this article doesn't satisfy the standard. Purpose #1 listed is information and this is certainly information. I think the policy in question here is WP:IINFO and whether or not this would be considered indiscriminate (which is elaborated on by WP:LISTCRUFT). I personally don't see it here, but that was after an initial reaction to vote delete after which I considered the reason why and didn't think it was strong enough -- which is why I mentioned I think individual lists for each soap opera would be too narrow and indiscriminate. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 03:02, 5 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 04:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm in agreement with Nintendude64, I don't see this as listcruft as it stands, though it could use more referencing - I doubt it would be difficult to do. –anemone projectors– 14:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Waffle[edit]

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

Little to no reliable secondary source coverage. Merge into artist's article. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 11:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just delete the song info and keep the sentence on the STD? Buggie111 (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 30 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - No reliable sources for Blue Waffle, the song, and the STD seems to be a blatant hoax. Merge the song with the artist, delete the STD information. Vacation9 (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Upon further review, this site [36] actually talks about the disease being a hoax. My bad. Buggie111 (talk) 01:04, 5 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 04:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have next-to-no idea about the song, but the STD is a popular internet meme/insult-type thing and is notable that way, but probably not notable enough to have its own article, and I don't know where else it would go. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unsourced mess of an article. STATic message me! 05:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Spinning Spark 19:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dean of the United States Senate[edit]

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

This article does not cite any sources, and as best I can find, the term has only been once used by a reliable source (here, by the Congressional Research Service). (Several sources refer to Robert Byrd, late President pro tem, as the Dean, but none of them is reliable, or appears to be quoting a more reliable source.) However, since the term is completely synonymous with the much more frequently used "President pro tempore of the Senate," which is not only a formal position, but a constitutional office, and carries no added privileges or responsibilities (unlike the Dean of the House, who swears in the Speaker), I suggest that this article should be deleted, and replaced with a redirect to the article on the President pro tem, which could include one line in the intro reading something like "The President pro tem has also been referred to as the Dean of the Senate, paralleling the title of the longest-serving majority-party House member." Francophonie&Androphilie (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the 'Dean of the Senate' is not "completely synonymous" with 'President pro tempore', as the latter is almost always a member of the majority party, and seniority had little to do with the PPT's selection in the first 150 years of the Senate. Star Garnet (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You make a very good point. I failed to notice that the Dean need not be a member of the majority party. My apologies. And while the source I linked to above does not state outright that the Dean is the longest-serving Senator, given the context (in a section on longevity of service), I'll concede that it's safe to assume that that's what the Congressional Research Service takes the term to mean. However, since the Deanship is not an official position (unlike the Deanship of the House), and lacking either documentation that each and every person who has been the longest-serving Senator has been at some point referred to as the Dean, or a reliable source that gives this definition and asserts that this definition has existed and remained the same since the birth of the Republic, wouldn't any list of historical deans be inherently synthesis? In other words, the list of Deans is really just a list of Senators who have at one point been the longest-serving; since this is an article about an informal term, it seems improper to attach it to people to whom, as far as we know, the term was never applied.
My main point, I suppose, is that there isn't enough documentation of this title to warrant a whole article, since really only the introduction can be proven. We could put a "Dean of the Senate" subsection under President pro tempore: Related Officials and a note on the Dean of the House page, both saying something along the lines of "The longest-serving Senator, regardless of party, is sometimes informally referred to as the Dean of the Senate. Unlike the Dean of the House, who exercises an official role, the Dean of the Senate is not granted any added privileges or duties, save for any he might receive as President pro tempore or President pro tempore emeritus" (citing the CRS and maybe a few other sources I've now dug up). Francophonie&Androphilie (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the vast majority have been referred to as dean, and a quick news search turns up at least one reference for the first four I searched for (Simmons, Smoot, Borah, Smoot and Borah, and Aiken). Star Garnet (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect or Merge with President pro tempore of the United States Senate~~. President pro tempore is the official terminology, so it doesn't seem suitable to have a separate article for informal terminology. But this article does have good information that'd be useful in the appropriate article. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 21:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted above, Dean and PPT are hardly the same thing. There have been 46 deans, and only 24 of them have concurrently served as PPT. Their combined concurrent time roughly totals 75 years, approximately only a third of the Senate's history. If the articles are merged, the list of Deans would have to remain a separate list; otherwise, the redirect would be misleading and enforce a stereotype that many people already hold. Star Garnet (talk) 22:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As dean of the senate is not the PPT, a simple redirect wouldn't suffice. Google searching Dean of the United States Senate really doesn't turn up much leading me to believe it's not a notable topic. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 03:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm inclined to agree with Star Garnet on notability. If you look at the links he and I have shown, you'll see that it is a term that's been used by reliable sources, if infrequently. My point is simply that it's not sufficiently notable for its own page. — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 03:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to whether the discussion is about whether there's sufficient documentation that the longest-serving Senator is referred to as Dean, or whether a list of the longest-serving Senators at each point in history is relevant to Wikipedia. If it's the former, the matter can be resolved by renaming the article "List of most senior Senators in each Congress" or something to that effect. As far as I know, the term is not in general contemporary usage; the most recent "Dean" cited in the statement above retired in 1974, and the other three served long before that. But if it's the latter, I see no reason to delete the list, as it's an interesting historical footnote even granted that being the individual with the greatest seniority does not per se confer power; being president pro tempore requires being in the majority party, and being a committee chair or ranking minority member as a result of seniority is more significant than the amount of seniority itself. JTRH (talk) 00:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the list may be relevant elsewhere. As for the definition, it's not so much the recent "deans" that pose the problem (Inouye and Byrd have both been referred to as such), but more the long-ago ones. I've searched Brown, Ruggles, and Sumner on Google and Google News (last names, full names, full names in quotes, etc., each time along with the words "dean" and "senate"), and found absolutely nothing. In my opinion, this article makes two interesting points that simply can't be treated as a single point: It asserts that the longest-serving Senator is often called the Dean of the Senate; and it provides a list of men who have been the most senior senators. However, since it's unclear when the term started being used in reference to the longest-serving senator, one can't synthesize the two points.
My opinion is: Move Dean of the Senate#List of Deans to List of U.S. Senators who have been most senior among their colleagus (or something like that), if consensus holds it to be sufficiently notable. Redirect Dean of the Senate to President pro tempore of the United States Senate#Related Officials#Dean of the Senate. It would then be perfectly fine to write on the former page "Often, such a Senator is referred to as the Dean of the Senate," and to include on the latter page a wikilink to the former, since neither would be claiming that all historical most-senior senators have been referred to as deans, nor that the deanship is a sufficiently important role to warrant an article of its own. Francophonie&Androphilie (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: "Dean of the United States Senate" is very similar to the term Father of the House as used in the UK and other places. It is not a formal office of any sort and it is not the same as the President pro tempore (although in modern times both titles are often held by the same person). Even so, it does occasionally come up. Most references cite Robert Byrd as "Dean of the Senate" or something along those lines (Cite). I've found a few older sources that refer to Strom Thurmond as dean of the Senate (Here for example). But it's not just them. Here's a source referring to William Borah as "Dean of the Senate" in 1939. Incidentally Borah was Dean of the Senate from 1933 to 1940, but was never President pro tempore. So yes, it's not an actual "office," but it is a title with a significant amount of history to it. Faustus37 (talk) 04:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question is if it's notable enough to have its own article. Prior to the 50's or so, the Presidency pro tem was not simply decided by seniority, so it was not at all uncommon for the dean to not be the PPT. Now, however, any dean is either the PPT, or would become PPT if their party were to gain control. The Deanship, therefore, is a closely related idea to the Presidency pro tem. The latter is inherently far more notable since it is a constitutional office, while the former is an informal title. Considering that the rest of the information in this article provided about the dean is original research insofar as it implies that all historical most-senior senators have been referred to as deans, there isn't much to say about the deanship that is worth having a whole article on it, as opposed to a subsection of President pro tempore: Related Officials, which already contains several formal, Senatorially-mandated offices. — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 04:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It appears the term may have came about in the 1890s, as each dean from Justin Smith Morrill to the present (with the exception of John McClellan) is referred to as "dean"/"Dean" in at least one online news article or book. Prior to that, either the term didn't exist or sources using it are not online. This may not be surprising, however, as from Morrill on, all deans have served at least 22 years before becoming dean, while before Morrill, only Benton had served more than 18 years (23) prior to becoming dean. Thus, from the 1890s on, the 'position' requires a much greater time commitment to achieve. While the first half of the list may not be notable per se, it seems clear enough to me that it has been a widely recognized position for at least the past 120 years. Star Garnet (talk) 04:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's worth noting that since 1989 there have only been three Deans of the Senate: Thurmond, Byrd and Daniel Inouye. Given that Inouye has been the dean for a relatively short period of time, and that Deans predating Thurmond were well before the "Internet Age," if you will, it's not surprising to see most sources reference either Thurmond or Byrd. Faustus37 (talk) 06:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment http://www.jstor.org/stable/451619, published in 1935, says "Senator Smoot was 'dean of the Senate in continuous service.'", and it appears to be quoting some edition of Webster's dictionary. If we can dig up enough sources for the term, it's fine to provide a list of people who had the qualifications that now make someone the dean. 2001:18E8:2:1020:5A2:3E1C:4D48:98FB (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-established term, subject appropriate for Wikipedia. As for the "before the 50s or so" argument, above, I would remind people that notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY - if the office was notable before the 50s, it's still notable now. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 17:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting term, and an occasionally useful piece of information on a major institution. Not earth shattering, but clearly a term that has been used for 100years, and distinct from other official designations. needs more references, but almost certain they can be found. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename per WP:NOTNEO. - The topic -- the Senator with the longest continuous service -- meets WP:LIST. This is an article naming issue rather than a deletion issue. The trouble with the article name using "Dean" is that, unless a reliable source referred to the listed Senator as "Dean", that Senator should not be listed in the Wikipedia article. That would result in an incomplete List of United States Senators with the longest continuous service. Most of the sources merely talk about United States Senate and Howard Dean (e.g., "Because the fact is that on October 6th, five days before we voted in the United States Senate, Howard Dean said") or mention "appointment of Rep. Dean Heller to the United States Senate." However, I found a "dean" source for John C. StennisNew York Times, John Warner (from FOX: O'Reilly Factor May 28, 2007: Critics Lay into Hillary Clinton's Election Chances), Robert ByrdNPR Whitehouse.com So, what it comes down to is to either delete everything in the List of Deans table except for John C. Stennis, John Warner, and Robert Byrd and keep the beltway-insider-clever, but-does-not-meet Wikipedia:Article titles title, "Dean of the United States Senate," or keep the list intact and use an article title, such as List of United States Senators with the longest continuous service. Per WP:NOTNEO, Wikipedia is not the place to popularize terms such as Dean of the United States Senate and WP:V requires a reliable source referring to a specific Senator as "Dean" to identify that Senator in a list of Deans of the United State Senate. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that Dean of the Senate is a neologism, as it has been in fairly continuous use since at least the 1890s; here are references for all but one dean since 1891: Morrill, Allison, Hale, Frye, Cullom, Gallinger, Lodge, Warren, Simmons, Smoot, Borah, Smith, McKellar, George, Hayden, Russell, Ellender, Aiken, Eastland, Magnuson, Stennis, Thurmond, Byrd, Inouye. Star Garnet (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta learn how to do that kind of searching! It would help if you added a column to the table in the article and posted those links as sources. As for the article, other than writing Dean isan informal term used to refer to the Senator with the longest continuous service, there's not much to else to write about the topic. In that case, it would have to be deleted. However, if the artice was reamed List of Deans of the United States Senate, then it would fall under list requirements, instead of prose requirements, and could be kept. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 05:34, 12 November 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, MBisanz ^talk 03:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename List of Deans of the United States Senate as per Uzma Gamal. Star Garnet (talk) 06:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- AgreeI'm on board with this as long as its intro reads something like "The United States Senator with the longest continuous service among his peers is frequently referred to as the Dean of the Senate. A list of the individuals who've fit this definition is as follows." That way you can both define a useful term and list the people to whom it may have applied, without erroneously stating that it was ascribed to each and every one of them. — further, Francophonie&Androphilie sayeth naught (Je vous invite à me parler) 07:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Established term, the nominator should spend some time to source the article (which should be easy enough to do) rather than delete it. Mountain Herb (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 02:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Dollar[edit]

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

Rapper with a handful of mixtapes but who has never charted. Of the four external links, two are dead, one is a mindless interview, and one doesn't mention him at all (and the article's single reference doesn't mention him either). All I can really find on Google are articles that merely compare him to the (unrelated) slain rapper Dolla. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't bother notifying the creator because s/he created the article in April 2007 and hasn't been on Wikipedia since. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Biography-related deletion discussions. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I haven't found any sources that would be considered significant and notable, I found relevant results here, here and here (both of these are press releases), here (performed on the New York subways) and here (announcement that he is not the murdered rapper, Dolla). There isn't anything to establish notability or providing other details about him. SwisterTwister talk 07:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage in reliable sources here, here, here (briefer) and possibly here and here. --Michig (talk) 17:15, 5 November 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, — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above sources. Passes WP:BASIC. Cavarrone (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 02:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Davies (football coach)[edit]

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

Contested prod. Reason given on the prod was: "Short BLP of person known only for having one job at one club, basically inexpandable, can find very little other than press release naming him in job. No assertion of automatic notability as per criteria on WP:ATHLETE" Rotten regard Softnow 03:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not received significant coverage, and he has not played or managed at a professional level, meaning this article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is his play in the Scottish Premier League notable? http://www.11v11.com/players/darren-davies-5563/ lists him as playing in division 1 and the FA cup. Being a youth coach in the A League definitely isn't enough. The-Pope (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has not played in the Scottish Premier League, but Division One, which is the second tier. An easy mistake to make given the non-intuitive nature of the league names. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets NFOOTBALL as he has played in a WP:FPL, further verified by Neil Brown. Needs moving to Darren Davies (footballer) and improving to meet GNG, but notable enough for now. Giant Snowman 18:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - even though his coaching career confers no notability, he passes WP:NFOOTBALL as he has played in a WP:FPL. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:31, 7 November 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, — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weakest possible keep Neil Brown shows he played in the first division in 2000-01 as far as I understand it. None of the references in WP:FPL go anywhere near that far back and so do not establish that the league could be considered a fully professional league then. Would be notable now if he was playing but it is questionable whether he is now. Would be more comfortable to see more extensive player history. Fenix down (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Weitzenhoffer Family College of Fine Arts. (non-admin closure) —Theo polisme 02:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American Organ Institute[edit]

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

This article fails to demonstrate the importance or notability of what is essentially a division of the keyboard area within the music department at this university. Waldhorn (talk) 05:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Weitzenhoffer Family College of Fine Arts, the parent article. Redirects are cheap. The institute is not independently notable and does not warrant a separate article.--xanchester (t) 16:18, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per xanchester. Faustus37 (talk) 01:23, 6 November 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, — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of physics concepts in primary and secondary education curricula[edit]

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

I dont understand how this is appropriate here. its really just a list of physics concepts, without any context or definition. the basic ones will always be covered in any physic class. the title doesnt fit right, as there is no way some of these ideas are covered at the primary school level. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The proposer's rationales can be paraphrased as "It's just a list" and "the name is wrong", neither of which are criteria for deletion. Not only are stand-alone lists a basic type of Wikipedia article with their own Manual of Style page and even WikiProject, but this list clearly satisfies the notability criteria for stand-alone lists: It is discussed by several citations. Its contents are to be found in the Science content standards for California public schools : kindergarten through grade twelve as well as the table of contents of five textbooks designed for this level. It might be appropriate to change the name, but that is a matter for the article's talk page. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. RockMagnetist (talk) 05:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic is important, although there is much room for improvement. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, the topic is obviously notable, even if it needs lots of overhaul (e.g. should be divided by nationality at least). --Cyclopia ^talk 18:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. There are marginally more recommending delete than keep, but several of the keep recommendations are either not policy based or have misunderstood policy. Some of the delete recommendations are not policy based either, but duly weighting all the contributions against policy there is a strong result for delete. Possibly a future article could be constructed by an independent editor. The crackpot fringe can have articles about them on Wikipedia, but they must be (a) notable, and (b) clearly explain that they are fringe ideas. Notability has not been established in this article, as has been pointed out by several contributors, on the basis of the subjects own publications. Scholar returns an h-index of about four which is not enough to meet WP:PROF#1 and that is about the only way that one's own publications by themselves could be judged to meet notability. Reliable sources independent of the subject are required. Spinning Spark 19:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

David Jay Brown[edit]

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

Promotional BLP created by two IPs and an SPA. It's largely primary-sourced and gives little confidence of notability. Mangoe (talk) 02:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. The article is the very height of meaningless vapid ego, of abuses surrounding WP:AUTO, or abuses surrounding WP:COI, written by the self-promoting subject himself [37] and his good obliging pal [38] who is financially connected to various projects involving David Jay Brown. The sourcing itself is an ugly testament to self-advancement, self-promotion, and self-love, as David Jay Brown constitutes nearly every single source himself--David Jay Brown and his friend using David Jay Brown himself as a source for an article about David Jay Brown himself. Incredible. It's as though, in their minds, there is no universe at all outside of the mind of David Jay Brown. Off-wiki you'll find a very few non-primary sources, mostly bloggy onanism focusing on WP:FRINGE, most of it the purest spam posing giddily and ludicrously as objectivity. Spectacularly fails WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, WP:CREATIVE, WP:RS, WP:GNG, and any other policy you care to name. Earlier versions of the article were even worse--if such a thing is possible--praising Brown as a modern-day messiah who combined all of the powers of Jesus and Freud and Einstein and Marx and, oh why the heck not, Timothy Leary, lol. For years now, anyone daring to touch this article has been roundly abused in the most aggressive and personal ways imaginable, in one of the most egregious cases of WP:OWN that we have ever seen. Now this tyranny must end, and this article must go. This is not the first time a self-appointed spiritual savior has promoted himself on Wikipedia, nor the first time we've been abused by the followers of such a person. What never ceases to stagger me is how much personal abuse is hurled by these people who insist that they are so very, very spiritual. Now if only he were notable! Qworty (talk) 03:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be a word of truth in this incredible screed. I ask for diffs to demonstrate earlier versions of the article "praising Brown as a modern-day messiah who combined all of the powers of Jesus and Freud and Einstein and Marx and, oh why the heck not, Timothy Leary" and "anyone daring to touch this article has been roundly abused in the most aggressive and personal ways imaginable" and examples of the subject promoting himself as "a self-appointed spiritual savior". I find a consistent characterization of the subject as a journalist/interviewer, a science fiction author, and a researcher in fields related to the mind. I'd also like an explanation as to why the bibliography was deleted.Rosencomet (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. COI, marketing brochure about a non-notable self appointed expert. All it needs is the 800 number. History2007 (talk) 08:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References do not establish notability, clearly promotional. - MrOllie (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no reliable sources, the sources listed are either primary sources or unreliable sources. So, I did my own searching and found lots of thing by Brown but very little about Brown. I did find one solid book review (in journal Nature Medicine Jul2007, Vol. 13 Issue 7, p775-775, 1p) but that's a long way from establishing notability. All the TV show appearances look impressive but unable to verify with reliable independent sources; a cursory check of IMDB (not a reliable source but out of curiosity) did not show appearances on those shows. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this shit. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatant (self-)promotional spam. Notability is tenuous at best. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep David Jay Brown contributed to Cognition Factor (2009) and Rupert Sheldrake's consciousness experiments. --SchwannCybershaman (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)§[reply]

Cognition Factor does not have an article here, and seems deeply non-notable (e.g. Rotten Tomatoes lists no reviews for it). Sheldrake is a fringe theorist who is not adequate to endorse notability on his own. Mangoe (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cognition Factor is listed on IMDb---SchwannCybershaman (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)§[reply]

IMDB does not constitute WP:RS, as anyone can post anything there. Qworty (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They also fail to report any reviews, implying that nobody cared. Mangoe (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked with Brown in person in Basel 2006. Felt it appropriate to add in my two bits as I have met the guy. He is a bit like Woody Allen. Mercy?----SchwannCybershaman (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)§[reply]

Yes, let us have mercy on Wikipedia readers and get this deleted. The people who edit that page and you voting here seem to know the person, so that just runs counter to the idea of "general notability" outside a small circle. History2007 (talk) 21:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's worse, more obscure stuff, which Wiki carries quite happily, but you all seem to have decided so I'm declining further comment--------SchwannCybershaman (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)§[reply]

That "other stuff" you're referencing falls, quite appropriately enough, under WP:OTHERSTUFF. Qworty (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His many books published by presses, his appearances in prominent Television shows, his work in leading publications, all support notability. Please don't be swayed by personality attacks like the one Qworty offers on this page, and look at the body of work of this author, journalist and scientific researcher.Rosencomet (talk) 04:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- His books and articles and TV appearances are all primary sources, not the secondary sources that are required for notability, as short-handed at WP:42. In other words, anything by him is unusable for notability; there have to be significant, multiple, independent resources about him. Qworty (talk) 06:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- It should also be mentioned that as on the article talk page Rosencomet seems to have a vested interest (WP:COI) in the Rosencomet website and this subject. This whole discussion is reeking with WP:COICOICOI. History2007 (talk) 09:16, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The extent of his publication record makes me think that he's passing WP:PROFESSOR #1. I'm not wholly sure of that, but it looks that way. Note that the current form of the article follows WP:NPOV quite well; the only reason that we discourage conflicts of interest is that they can lead to non-neutral content, and that result has not happened here. Nyttend (talk) 14:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's his college/university affiliation? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GScholar shows a significant body of work published or cited in reputable sources. There's a tremendous amount of inappropriate invective here, very little of it bearing on legitimate notability issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs work, but there's enough information in it already to demonstrate notability. Folklore1 (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is notable based on the content of the article. He is a published author and deserves to retain his article.JuliusAaron (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Read WP:AUTHOR. Just being a published author does not confer notability per Wikipedia standards. Qworty (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Spinning Spark 18:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robb Wolf[edit]

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

I apologize - I can't seem to get the template correct.

Robb Wolf - It's clear that this individual does not meet the Notability Guidelines and uses this page as a marketing technique or tool. Every single word on this page was written by the subject himself, with no outside sourcing.

There are no respected outside verifiable sources other than the subject's own book which is not published by any mainstream outlets. The sole source of fame for this individual is that he put out a few podcasts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diadelsuerte (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this WP:ADVERT for failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Looks clearly like an example of promotion through WP:AUTO. Qworty (talk) 01:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paleolithic diet — this subject garners passing mention in pieces that focus on that topic. See the article talk page for a few examples of such coverage. Going through WP:BEFORE, I haven't found anything more substantial than the likes of those examples. Otherwise, this subject fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC for lack of substantial coverage. JFHJr (㊟) 01:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — The list of interviews, recently added, is next to worthless because they're from blogger-podcasters who, just like the subject, publish WP:BLPSPS. They contribute nothing biographically, and are not of the encyclopedic reliability required of BLP sources. The focus of the interviews is generally the paleolithic diet anyway. JFHJr (㊟) 18:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Consensus is that enough third-party coverage to warrant an article does not exist. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ian D. Marsden[edit]

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

The username of the page creator suggests the article is an autobiography. The article is poorly sourced, with the only source listed being the personal website of the subject. The article reads as advertisement, with the included images making it look like the artist's portfolio. -- Patchy1 01:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now due to lack of appropriate sources, Google News found one link here (Spanish) that confirms his employment with Google and Google Books found one book here that he co-contributed to. I returned to Google News and added both "artist" and "Google" but found nothing else. The link with the "New Mediaaward" sentence was dead so I searched web.archive.org and successfully retrieved it, but it never actually mentions him. Therefore, I searched myself for evidence to support this but only found unreliable and primary sources. Conflict of interest articles won't usually disturb me unless extremely promotional or problematic because we're all here to help, and I appreciate the author's contributions but there isn't anything to establish verification or notability at this time. SwisterTwister talk 03:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google doodles get ample coverage, and he made the first one ever, as the reliable source I added a reference to in the article clearly proves. WP:ARTIST 3. The person has created ... a significant or well-known work ..that has been the subject ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. So he passes that. Perhaps number 4 also, not sure. Number 3 is enough though. Dream Focus 07:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the article were kept solely because of his accomplishment of producing the first Google Doodle, it would probably always remain a stub. Inspired by The Wall Street Journal reference, I searched again and found another news article here (for his 2000 Olympics logo), here and here (this last one is a minor mention). The issue has been the lack of sources for his other work. SwisterTwister talk 07:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 07:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage in RS to write an article, it is irrelevant if it does or does not pass the WP:ARTIST guidelines if the sources are not there then the subject is not notable and given the autobiographical nature of the article it should be deleted. Mt king ^(edits) 08:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From Ian Marsden himself - Sorry if this is not written in the correct format. I have been made aware that some people want to delete the entry about me because they seem to doubt that I actually created the first Google doodle, that I created the official mascot for the FIS Alpine Ski World Championship 2003 in St. Moritz or there are some other concerns. Some source information is:

DRS3 Interview: Michael Zezzi spricht mit Maskottchen Designer Ian Marsden, a recent radio interview I gave about my mascot designs and about my thoughts about the London Olympics mascots to Swiss radio.
Wacom posting.[39], my permanent features artist page on Wacom.com where I am now also a 'Wacom Evangelist'
Wall Street Journal July 16, 2011, a Wall Street Journal article about the early days at Google. If you have any doubts about my involvement at Google as the first Doodle creator why don't you contact Susan Wojcicki directly at Google?
Olympic Games Sydney 2000 | Google-Doodle, a YouTube video featuring most of my Sydney Olympics doodles (not posted by me)
blog.marsdencartoons.com, my bio on my own website. Am I being accused of fabricating these items or misrepresenting my own curriculum vitae?

As far as I understand I need to have at least two sources that have interviewed me or written about me, hopefully the above recent ones will suffice. Any further questions may be posed directly to me through marsdencartoons.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Marsden (talk • contribs) 23:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never doubted that you created the first Google Doodle as I found evidence to support this. The issue was that there weren't any other sources to verify your other work. It's not that we're accusing you of fabrication but rather Wikipedia requires third-party sources to establish notability and to ensure the best verification, nothing personal. SwisterTwister talk 23:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I (as the nominator) never doubted that either, I just know that Wikipedia is not a place for poorly sourced autobiographical advertisements. -- Patchy1 00:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From Ian again: More source information:

Photoshop Magazine July 2010, a 2010 interview with German PSD Photoshop Magazine.
jatail.com, a page on the Jatail Website still listing me as their creative director (where I designed all the album art and logos for La Toya Jackson etc).

As a designer I don't really know what third parties there would be. There is the client and there is the resulting product. There have been quite a few articles and interviews over the years about my work. Many don't appear to show up in Google. This article here has been on Wikipedia for at least six years if not more. I am sorry if it is poorly sourced. As far as I understand it is frowned upon if I edit it myself and I don't really want to ask other people to do it either. To sum up: I hope that I have now provided both sufficient links to third party entities mentioning me and my work. Apart from that I don't know if the past 25 years of my career have been sufficient to qualify for the criteria under 'Creative Professionals' and I do not want to argue the topic on my own behalf. Since I published my first cartoon in Penthouse magazine at age 16 and therefore started out relatively young, there is still hope that I might reach this distinction during the next 25 year phase of my creativity. If for some reason you still think you need to delete the article then by all means go ahead. Cheers. Ian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Marsden (talk • contribs) 00:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, third parties essentially are 1. Wikipedia reliable source (newspaper articles, magazine articles, and book information) that were published and 2. have no connection to you. (see WP:GNG for more info). Blog.marsdencartoons.com is connected to you since it is your website as is jatail.com because that is where you work. youtube.com is not connected to you, but is not considered a Wikipedia reliable source since anyone can upload videos there. Was that interview published someplace else? Wacom.com appears to be connected to you. The Wall Street Journal article is a good GNG source, but there's not much information in there from which to write a biography article on Ian D. Marsden. The Photoshop Magazine is a great GNG source. One more of those, and it is possible that the article will be kept. Your name is common, so it's hard to find source information on you. What ever you have, please post in this discussion or provide a link to where the info is on your website. I found three bits of information. One, I added to the article:

In March 2003, Marsden was nominated for 2002 New Media Cartoonist of the Year by the National Cartoonists Society.^[1]
In January 2003, Marsden illustrated Smoony, the official mascot designed by Tatjana Keller for the 2003 Alpine Ski World Championship in St. Moritz, Switzerlandand.^[2] Marsden illustration conveyed the message that "the action on the track no longer is everything."^[2]

^ "Four cartoonists vie to be year's best: Winners to be wined and dined at May dinner in SF". Dallas Morning News. March 17, 2003. p. 4C. ((cite news)): |section= ignored (help)
^ ^a ^b Oliver Zils (January 30, 2003). "Ski Alpin Vermarkter IMG hat bei der Akquise von Partnern für die Weltmeisterschaften leichtes Spiel St. Moritz bei Sponsoren en vogue Trotz Biathlon-Boom und Schanzen-Euphorie liegt die Alpine Ski-WM gut im Rennen". Horizont. p. 24. Retrieved November 7, 2012. ((cite news)): |section= ignored (help)

As for another source of information, I would like to confirm that this is not about you. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From Ian Marsden:

Yes the name Ian Marsden is incredibly common especially in Britain. No the article at the bottom has nothing to do with me. I have never lived in Britain and I have also never molested anybody or ever been arrested.

Yes it is correct that I was nominated for the 2003 National Cartoonist Society Reuben Award in the category "New Media"

Yes it is also correct that I designed and illustrated Smoony the official mascot for the Ski World Championship. It was designed by me not by Tatjana Keller. Mrs. Keller worked for the organization and hired me to design the mascot. It was roughly based on a child's drawing that won a contest in St. Moritz in as fas as the drawing featured a half moon and half sun face. The final design was entirely original and bore no actual resemblance to the child's sketch.

Wacom is not connected to me. They contacted me and asked me if they may feature me as a featured artist on their homepage. It is correct that Wacom is now using some of my artwork in an ad campaign for Wacom and I created a series of videos in which I explain how I work on my Wacom Cintiq display but I am not an employee of Wacom. The same goes for Jatail - I worked for them for several years but i am not at all connected with them anymore in any way. Once in a while I create artwork for them as an independent contractor. I only added that link to show that they indeed featured me on their site and that I DID work for them.

I will see if I can find some more interviews like the PSD Magazine article. Best regards. Ian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Marsden (talk • contribs) 19:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lean delete - I'll look for some additional coverage, but as it stands, I'm not finding much. Go Phightins! 22:11, 11 November 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, -- Patchy1 01:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable due to lack of substantial coverage in multiple reliablable independent sources. My own Google searches turned up nothing substantial at all, nor give me any reason to expect that any will be found. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacking depth-of-coverage from 3rd party reliable sources; dubious claim of being the "first" for this as well (contradicted by Google themselves). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2012#Campaign_staff_and_policy_team. There would probably be little to merge so a redirect would be better. I found several news results mentioning her here, here (this second result is a detailed article about her, noting that she previously worked for Beth Myers, senior advisor and chief of staff for Mitt Romney) and here. There are probably more but chances are those would be trivial mentions. (non-admin closure) SwisterTwister talk 22:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kelli Harrison[edit]

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

Notability has not been established -- Patchy1 11:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as doesn't currently appear to meet WP:GNG or re-direct to an article on Romney or his campaign (on WP:ONEEVENT grounds). Bondegezou (talk) 17:58, 20 October 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. Any notability beyond the single WSJ article does not exist. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 02:57, 29 October 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 4 November 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, -- Patchy1 01:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. As Nintendude said, there is no notability beyond the WSJ journal. Vacation⁹ 17:49, 7 November 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, -- Patchy1 01:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, or as a second choice merge as above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. There have been 1 delete, 2 merge and 4 keep votes while one of the merge votes were by an editor who made their second edit across the wiki here. There were no chances of relisting after 3 already and deletion is never going to be an outcome with this AfD since there exists no other deletion vote other than the nom. There had been no support for deletion other then the nomination and the last 4 votes suggest keeping the article. If anyone still feels that this should be merged, than a discussion on the talk page is all that is needed. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes (application)[edit]

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

I look forward to a discussion on whether this article relating to the iOS native Notes app is notable. As I believe, in itself, it is not as it is fairly standard. If this article is deemed notable, this would suggest other native apps such as the clock, calendar and calculator must also be notable, and I don't believe that is the case. -- Patchy1 03:40, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would an article on native iPhone apps be notable? Ryan Vesey 03:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I mean would having one article that discusses Notes, Clock, Calendar, etc. in one article be notable. Ryan Vesey 03:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe as a section of iOS. -- Patchy1 05:59, 1 November 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, -- Patchy1 02:42, 4 November 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, -- Patchy1 01:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with iOS... Notes is just like every other app... I do not think that every app needs its own article Fer0015 (talk) 11:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to iOS. Maybe Passbook, which has received massive coverage from news agencies, would be notable. Notes is just another app though. Vacation⁹ 17:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as one of the major apps on a notsble system., There are enough reviews to be found. DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 7 November 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, -- Patchy1 01:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if more sources and content are able to be added. Videomaniac29 (talk) 04:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - part of a major system and essentially as notable as, say, Notepad is (OK, it's not anywhere near as well established, but it's essentially the iOS version of Notepad) - and no, I'm far from an Apple fanboy! Lukeno94 (talk) 10:33, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand - Part of OS and should be expanded to similar state of similar software. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jannik Olander[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Paid editing for someone who is at best a marginally notable figure. The two "references" are PR placements--pseudointerviews. where he says what he pleases not subject to any apparent editorial control, and therefore not RSs. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nomination. The two sources provided appear to have a close affiliation with the subject. BeyondKneesReach (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not able to find any other RS to base any article on so therefore should be deleted. Fails WP:GNG. Mt king ^(edits) 01:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, this is strange. There are lots of reliable sources in Scandinavia about this subject that do not appear to be PR (as it appears to be bad press). I was able to find them through the Google News Archives. This article from Ekstra Bladet describes how the subject apparently "stole" their jewelry designs (see here for a Google translation. His response to the situation is here, (see Google translation here. There is also this Danish article about how his T-shirt line has had controversy in the U.S. and Italy (translation here. There are plenty of other sources, though none are in English. That the page should not be a PR piece is obvious, but we don't delete articles even if they might invite promotional editing. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here's the link to the JCK Magazine interview: [40]. The article is part of the magazine's "Innovative Retailer" series, was composed by a senior editor of the magazine, and the magazine itself is circulated and requires payment (see: [41]). To DGG, are you certain that this is a case of PR placement (e.g. a paid advertorial) in which JCK Magazine was compensated for publishing the article by a PR agency or the person himself? That said, the questions from the interviewer are rather generic, whereas the responses are long and detailed, and the article does have a promotional tone. Perhaps DGG is correct regarding this matter, but proof by evidence, rather than by assertion, is preferred in these matters. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I used the wrong word, not PR placement, but based on PR, or more exactly, entirely PR, his own PR in his own words. One doesn't have evidence for this--evidence would be seeing the various f=draft wages of the document, and the correspondence between the parties and the recording of the interview. What matters is the result, & to judge that we use common sense and the comparison with what we know to be genuine reporting. As one of the acknowledge paid editors said to me at a recent discussion, almost every publication of this sort is to some extent based or motivated by PR. I believe he used it as a defense of using such sources--I use it as a reason for rejection unless I see some evidence of actual editorial judgment. (The argument for notability would be that the news source chose him as interesting enough to be given space to tell his story. I would have made that argument 5 years ago, when lack of experience on Wikipedia caused me to be quite naïve about the extent of promotionalism.) DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. Also, note that it appears JCK Magazine discloses their content that are advertorials, at least those for their own events. For example, see [42]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotion. In fact there appears to be more emphasis on companies and products than on the person, which leaves the impression that this bio is merely an vehicle for corporate promotion. On a personal note, in spite of Wikipedia being generally inclusionist, I see no reason why the volunteer community should spend their time rescuing something that has been paid for and aims to increase the profit of a company. The onus for providing sources is on the creator. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article certainly has taken on an increased promotional tone compared to its state at the time its first AfD discussion closed: diff page, and in many ways it reads like an advertisement at this time. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable (both the individual and the company), overly promotional, and lack of significant coverage by reliable WP:RS. Rhode Island Red (talk) 05:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've substantially rewritten the article, and so I encourage editors to reexamine it. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesn't seem to meet criteria for notability (i.e.WP:ARTIST in this case). Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jethrobot's excellent uncovering of sources. By the way, what is a Jethrobot? Is that a good or frightening robot? --65 Edits Per Hour (talk) 13:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC) — 65 Edits Per Hour (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock Mt king^(edits) 19:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on Jethrobot's revisions and edits. Possible conflict of interest here in that I voted to keep this before, although commenting on the borderline nature of the notability, and think Jethrobot did a good job with what can only be called minimal sources. But yes, it is at best a weak keep. Mabalu (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jethrobot. I think the sources here are reliable enough for our standards, and not just PR releases. If the article seems promotional, that's a reason to improve it rather than delete it. Robofish (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources being discussed are not sufficient to meet WP:RS or WP:BIO or WP:GNG. The notability bar for biographies is much higher than what is being presumed here. Qworty (talk) 02:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Clear consensus that the subject meets the relevant guidelines. TerriersFan (talk) 03:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Come on a Cone (song)[edit]

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

Not convinced this passed WP:NMUSIC, there's no significant coverage. While a music video was released it doesn't appear to have got a massive amount of coverage. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 17:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 30 October 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, BusterD (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It received enough coverage: Pitchfork: [43], MTV: [44], [45], Exclaim!: [46], SPIN: [47], Prefix: [48], FACT: [49], EW: [50], Digital Spy: [51]. Probably too much content for a merge to the album. --Michig (talk) 08:56, 4 November 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, Spinning Spark 00:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject of an article does not need to "have got a massive amount of coverage" for it to meet WP:GNG, or even WP:NMUSIC. It's received substantial non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. BeyondKneesReach (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article has received substantial non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Meets WP:NMUSIC ^Alex J _Fox^(Talk)_(Contribs) 01:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per exactly what AlexJFox and BeyondKneesReach stated. "substantial non-trivial coverage in reliable sources." It is notable per WP:NMUSIC. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Although I would like to have seen more depth of coverage and in major media outlets, the song and follow-up video released in Oct 2012 received lots of coverage in the hip-hop/rap niche. The links Michig provided above are non-trivial and reliable. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 01:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poppin, Inc.[edit]

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

One of an interconnected series of promotional articles on this firm and its brands, all created by the apparently single-purpose promotional editors User:Talunz and other editors including User:Maz204 and User:Julieb-pma Most have been previously deleted as A7, G11, or both. All the references appear to be entirely PR-based, and therefore not usable as reliable sources for notability. Rather than speedy again, I'm bringing them here so re-additions of the material can be unequivocally speedy deleted at reconstructions of deleted content. I'm listing them separately, because it is possible that one or more of the brands might be notable and someone might be prepared to completely rewrite the articles. I've sometimes done such extensive rewriting in the past, but I will no longer do my volunteer unpaid writing to replace the unacceptable work of people who have been paid to do it. (For those brands where it required only some deletions , and where the articles had references clearly showing notability, I did make the edits & have not nominated them here. I'm still willing to do that because fixing the promotionalism is the only way we have to deal with such low-quality but still acceptable articles.) DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a minor brand/startup not worthy of a stand-alone article (especially once the padding and blatant PR is removed). All the sources are based on press-releases/blurbs. It's mentioned in Burch Creative Capital and that's more than enough, although even that article has very marginal notability based on the current sourcing. Voceditenore (talk) 08:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:V, which requires not only that the article include some material from independent sources, but demands that the article be based on independent sources. There isn't enough independent material to form the foundation of an article.—Kww(talk) 21:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:15, 5 November 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, KTC (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nomination. This article would need to be entirely re-written and researched if it were ever to meet GNG. BeyondKneesReach (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Spinning Spark 01:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

C. Wonder[edit]

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

One of an interconnected series of promotional articles on this firm and its brands, all created by the apparently single-purpose promotional editors User:Talunz and other editors including User:Maz204 and User:Julieb-pma Most have been previously deleted as A7, G11, or both. All the references appear to be entirely PR-based, and therefore not usable as reliable sources for notability. Rather than speedy again, I'm bringing them here so re-additions of the material can be unequivocally speedy deleted at reconstructions of deleted content. I'm listing them separately, because it is possible that one or more of the brands might be notable and someone might be prepared to rewrite the articles from scratch. I've sometimes done such extensive rewriting in the past, but I will no longer do my volunteer unpaid writing to replace the unacceptable work of people who have been paid to do it. (For those brands where it required only some deletions, and where the articles had references clearly showing notability, I did make the edits & have not nominated them here. I'm still willing to do that because fixing the promotionalism is the only way we have to deal with such low-quality but still acceptable articles. DGG ( talk ) 21:47, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a minor brand/startup not worthy of a stand-alone article. All the sources are based on press-releases/blurbs + a very passing mention in a New York Times column devoted to fashion snippets. It's mentioned in Burch Creative Capital and that's more than enough, although even that article has very marginal notability based on the current sourcing. Voceditenore (talk) 08:03, 5 November 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, KTC (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Spinning Spark 01:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Burch Creative Capital[edit]

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

One of an interconnected series of promotional articles on this firm and its brands, all created by the apparently single-purpose promotional editors User:Talunz, User:Maz204, & User:Julieb-pma Most have been previously deleted as A7, G11, or both. The references appear to be entirely PR-based, and therefore not usable as reliable sources for notability. Rather than speedy again, I'm bringing them here so re-additions of the material can be unequivocally speedy deleted as reconstructions of deleted content.

I'm listing them separately, because it is possible that one or more of the brands might be notable and someone might be prepared to do the necessary extensive rewriting. I've sometimes done this in the past, but I will no longer do my volunteer unpaid work to replace the unacceptable work of people who have been paid to do it. (For those brands where it required only some deletions , and where the articles had references clearly showing notability, I did make the edits & have not nominated them here. I'm still willing to do that, because fixing the promotionalism is the only way we have to deal with such low-quality but still acceptable articles.) DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. New company, pushing their one-year old brands with "lipstick on a pig" reference padding to make it look notable:

Self-published profile of the owner
Company's website
CBS news, a reasonable source, but the article is actually about a female "PR Maven" who teamed up with the owner for a fashion brand that was part of a company he was formerly chairman of and has nothing to do with this company
Interview with the owner, not about the company
Press release snippet about the owner stepping down as chairman of a previous company
Press release based puff-piece on one of its new brands (C. Wonder) in Haute Living
Los Angeles Times, a reasonable source, but the article is actually about one of the new designers the company is investing in (Monika Chiang) and who is claimed to be "dating" the company's chairman
Press release based puff-piece on another one of their new brands (Poppin, Inc.) in Company Inc.

No evidence of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. The company's raison d'être is simply to manage the brands he's recently created and owns. This entire "suite" of articles is a shameless and unencyclopedic use of Wikipedia for PR. At most, some of the information here can be added to J. Christopher Burch Voceditenore (talk) 10:03, 5 November 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, KTC (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom and Voceditenor. Spinning Spark 01:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just lacks notability. Mt king ^(edits) 01:52, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prijatelji (comics)[edit]

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

No assertion of notability that I can see. I would speedy, but it's clear a lot of work has gone into this, so it should get a full dicussion. Gigs (talk) 06:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find RS after good faith search. There appears to be a language barrier, so if someone can make foreign RS appear, I'd reconsider. czar · · 06:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although it is part of independent, small press/fanzine scene, it has certain public notability. Apart of hard copies, it was exhibited in official mainstream places in Belgrade including Šumatovačka cultural center and even in the most elite gallery in Belgrade's downtown, "Progres": "Podsećamo na Prvu godišnju izložbu udruženja stripskih umetnika Srbije..." ("We remind you about First annual exhibition of Association of Comics Artists of Serbia", Stripvesti, Novi Sad, August 3, 2012. You can notice Prijatelji's creator Marko Todosijević Mrvaks as one of exhibitors at the national exhibition). All in all, I would advise to keep it. (Very good small press, btw.) --Stripar (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any clippings from Serbian newspapers or other authoritative places? The gallery listing and SPS blog aren't very reliable sources alone. czar · · 01:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do have clippings about exhibition by numerous national and regional mainstream media (although, without listing of names). Some examples: TANJUG (national news agency), Blic (one of main daily newspapers in Serbia), B92 (one of four TV and radio stations with national frequency) with report by TANJUG, International radio Glas Srbije (state owned, broadcasting in several languages). Additionally, exhibition was repeated on Belgrade International Book Fair in October. I know that title "Prijatelji" is not mentioned in exhibition news coverage (there were some of 150 artists), but it testifies about notability of creator Todosijevic, being argumentum ex silentio. I'm aware what problems face series from small press/fanzine publishing on Wikipedia, but I remind that we have here British and American analogies which have set the precedent. Anyway, voting will resolve this. (And, yes: Stripvesti.com are not SPS, it's main portal for Western-Balkan comics). Cheers. --Stripar (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for taking the time to collect those sources. I reviewed them all and the artist is only peripherally mentioned, if at all (same for his comics). Still the articles are more short blurbs about the happening than reports of the event—so I wouldn't say that even the event passes GNG. We'll see how the !votes fall, but re: argumentum e silentio—that's the basis for all AfD GNG decisions. (If it doesn't exist, it isn't notable enough for an encyclopedic entry. Not that the content isn't important, but that Wikipedia isn't the place for it.) czar · · 22:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm afraid that it was maximum at the moment regarding evidence of notability: as a member of national professional society Todosijevic exhibited (with Prijatelji strip) at the top national exhibition, as noted here "Podsećamo na Prvu godišnju izložbu udruženja stripskih umetnika Srbije...", and the exhibition had major media coverage (as evidenced in my previous post). I see your point, but I simply don't have additional evidence in this case. As you say: We'll see how the !votes fall. Sincerely, --Stripar (talk) 00:06, 4 November 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, Jenks24 (talk) 09:08, 4 November 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, KTC (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The big issue right now is finding sources that talk about the comic in depth. The above sources only mention the artwork briefly in relation to many other artists and the thing about exhibitions is that they only truly count towards notability in and of themselves if one of two (or both) things are met. The first is that the artwork is on permanent display in several notable galleries or museums. The second is if the comics themselves were the main focal point of a notable exhibition in a notable location. Now the thing about the second point is that it means that they would be the main feature of the exhibition rather than one of several other artists being shown, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Searching for sources was a little difficult due to the language barrier, but I just can't see where it's received a lot of in-depth coverage from sources Wikipedia would consider reliable. At this point in time it doesn't pass notability guidelines. I have no problem with anyone wanting to userfy it until more sources can be found, however. I do want to note that if sources are eventually found, the article will need to be re-written in some places as it occasionally as writing that reads more from a fan's point of view than from a neutral and encyclopedic point of view.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It needs to be rewritten, no doubt. But we are talking about notability here. Although this is small press, there is mainstream, independent and objective evidence. 1) The series was exhibited as focal point at "Mrvax i Prijatelji" exhibition in eminent Center for artistic education Šumatovačka in May 2012 (existing since 1948, part of City of Belgrade official cultural infrastructure, as you can see by symbols of the city and the municipality right top), 2) series has been covered on mainstream media (May 2012, Todosijevic interview on RTV "Studio B", City of Belgrade owned television network), 3) previous presentations (2010) have been regionally covered as we can see at SEE Cult - South-East European Culture Portal. For independent, small press project, and concerning previously posted links, I think it could be more than enough. As side-note, I don't have language barrier and I'm dealing with Yugoslav comics for last quarter of century, but perhaps it'll be good to have here some other native speaker as a second opinion to my conclusions. Cheers. --Stripar (talk) 12:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of the Beatles' record sales[edit]

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

Mostly unsourced string of trivia, bordering on WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and WP:CRUFT. Particularly noteworthy achievements can (and are!) mentioned with citations in individual articles, but incidents like "Biggest ever jump within the British albums chart (94 positions jumped by Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band from no. 97 to no. 3 in 1987) (record surpassed in 2008 by Leona Lewis's Spirit album.)" and "Most 2-sided charted singles in the Billboard Hot 100 charts (26 singles, including two double-sided #1 hits, although "For You Blue" (B-side of "The Long And Winding Road") accompanied its A-side and did not chart on its own)" are really reaching. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If this article is deleted, please also delete the redirect List of The Beatles' record sales. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 13:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 4 November 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, KTC (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unencyclopedic trivia festival. Carrite (talk) 02:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Carrite - this is a completely random list of trivia. Bearian (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Holger Michaelis[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF notability guidelines. (PROD removed without explanation.) czar · · 21:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 30 October 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now... at least until someone with reasonable skills in German language can sort out the issue of the claimed professor emeritus standing, which is De-Facto proof of notability per ACADEMIC. My German language skills aren't up to the task of chasing down and citing the references, but I did enough research to determine that references proving notability as an academic and/or author appear to exist. [This] list of his works at the German national library go toward notability as an author and/or as an important thinker in German sociology. Also, his status as Professor Emeritus might be supported by info found [Here] Celtechm (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak unverified keep There's some text on the web that indicates he was "chair as director for education and formation and as deputy director for the department of sociology", but it's from some Google cache of Facebook spam that may have originated on a wiki of some sort to start with. We need biographical sources to write an article. They are probably in German. Gigs (talk) 20:26, 9 November 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, KTC (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Neither of the two previous keeps describes a valid WP:PROF criterion for keeping the article. "Professor emeritus" merely means that he is a retired professor, and deputy director of a department is far too low of an administrative position. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm OK with deletion as well, if no one can actually find biographical sources. Gigs (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete. The meat of the aricle is the section "Academic life". This has only one reference (in German) which verifies only the very trivial fact that Michaelis was a research assistant to Wollmann—and even that is buried in a mere passing mention in a footnote. He has an h-index of only one as far as I can tell by feeding his publications list into Scholar. That is very poor, essentially completely non-notable, although I do not fully trust Scholar to give good results in non-English languages so would be open to persuasion if some further evidence is presented. Spinning Spark 16:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene O'Riordan[edit]

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

BLP fails WP:ACADEMIC notability guidelines czar · · 22:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete current sources do not show notability and good faith search did not produce any others. Also comment this article was mentioned among others at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gillian_McMahon, where at the conclusion of the discussion, the author included it in a list they said was "a bit obscure and could be removed immediately." This was back in 2006, it does not seem much has progressed since. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GS cites of 755, 482, 83, 64, 48... and h-index of 18 in a poorly cited field gives a pass of WP:Prof#C1. Please will nominator state why he ignored this issue? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- What issue? And your link doesn't show your stats to give it a C1 pass (see WP:Prof#Citation metrics). czar · · 08:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The stats can be seen by clicking on the word "scholar" in the searches automatically provided by the AfD nomination process. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks. I had already Scholar-searched it before the nom. I meant that the mentioned GS and h-index stats aren't determinant towards C1. czar · · 10:34, 1 November 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, SarahStierch (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Did you calculate the h-index on your own or am I missing something on the GS search page? Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I counted it on my fingers (with one carry ten). Thanks. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:53, 4 November 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, KTC (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A paper with 756 citations does not need calculation of h-index to prove notability. Arguably, that on its own meets Prof#C1. I cannot agree with Czar that h-index is not determinant to C1. The h-index pretty much enumerates what C1 is all about - "widely cited" means notable. It is true that Prof#Citation_metrics cautions about Google Scholar, but only to say that Scholar does not have access to everything. The true picture can only be even more notable if anything. Spinning Spark 01:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Mountain Herb (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

and your reasons based on policy? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Doesn't meet Criteria 1 of WP:ACADEMIC ie "1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." I see no evidence of a significant impact on the discipline. Mountain Herb (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A common objective measure of impact is the number of citations by others of the subjects works. Citations are evidence of significance. Spinning Spark 00:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The citation counts give a convincing pass of WP:PROF#C1 and the published reviews of his books provide adequate though not great reliable secondary sourcing. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, basically echoing David Eppstein. Prrof/C1. --j⚛e decker ^talk 06:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just about notable. --Shorthate (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. j⚛e decker ^talk 06:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Wil[edit]

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

A DJ. No independent, reliable references about him. There are social networking links, but no good refs. Prod was contested with "Hello! DJ Wil is a renowned DJ from London and have performed with several notable artists such as Daddy Saj, Emmerson etc. . He is widely known in the UK. I'll keep gathering a good source and update it." Bgwhite (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of notability. Spinning Spark 01:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like Bgwhite, I can find only some social networking links, no significant coverage in reliable sources. Gongshow ^Talk 18:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]