< 9 September 11 September >
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 redirect to Corey Feldman. Redirecting rather than deleting due to the argument that "Mindy Feldman" is a plausible search term, and also because she is mentioned in Corey's article. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mindy Feldman[edit]

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

Tis a sad thing when being the sister of Corey Feldman is one of your claims to fame. Her acting credits are too few and weak. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Mindy was the youngest "Mouseketeer", almost a mascot in a way, but frankly, VERY TALENTED! Mindy EARNED her ears through her voice, look, and "Tude" "Suprise-Day" was RIGHT when she sang it..and she is a GREAT Actress. Mindy...in the 70's I rode on my old Schwin...bike..(Banana BLUE Banana seat..METAL FLAK Mind you <Grin> To Chatsworth from The Valley (Granada Hills)..just to meet you. Hey Min..... Get ahold of me.....when ya got time :-)

Hope all is well with you and your family....all the best! -Ethan Tudor W. www.imdb.com KEYWORD Ethan Tudor W.

Carrite (talk) 08:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adrianna Franch[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that there is no FPL for women in the US, which has no bearing on notability, and on the grounds that she has been to, but has not played for the US national team, which is explicitly excluded per WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article have been created so many months ago. There is no longer fully professional leagues in women's football, so the articles are created primarily based on the athlete level of notability. And Franch has notability, since she already have been called to the United States senior team and she's one of the top prospects goalkeepers in the U.S--SirEdimon (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is relevant to notability. She has not received significant coverage for any of this, and none of it is covered by WP:NSPORT, except being called to but not playing for the national team which it says does not confer notability. There are only two relevant notability guidelines and she fails both. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

THERE NO FULLY PRO LEAGUE in women's soccer. Franch has notability, she never played in senior level for USA, but many articles of women's players are about player that never ever played for her their countries in senior level.--SirEdimon (talk) 23:11, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid claim to notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple, let's nominate all of them for deletion.--SirEdimon (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. – Kosm1fent 15:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


How can I improve the article to avoid deletion?--SirEdimon (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Find out if she has received significant non-routine coverage in independent reliable sources, so as to pass WP:GNG. – Kosm1fent 13:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look this https://www.google.com.br/search?hl=pt-BR&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=Adrianna+Franch&oq=Adrianna+Franch&gs_l=hp.12...0.0.1.575.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0...0.0...1c.CwCPuJmy9ro&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&biw=1024&bih=607&ech=1&psi=HptTUPU3i-ryBKT8gOgC.1347656797799.3&emsg=NCSR&noj=1&ei=HptTUPU3i-ryBKT8gOgC --SirEdimon (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Independent reliable sources, SirEdimon. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Devilbunnies[edit]

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

A completely made-up fictional element that has absolutely no notability. There are absolutely no reliable sources about this. As the whole topic was just made up by a usenet group, and never expanded to anything meaningful, WP:MADEUP also applies here. This article has somehow existed since 2004, and in that time, the subject in question has never managed to gain any notability. Rorshacma (talk) 22:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (article creator): yeah, I'm not going to contest this one. All I can say is, it seemed more notable to me at the time than it does now with the benefit of eight years' hindsight. (RIP Usenet.) --Calair (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 04:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Building[edit]

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

Strange, Page Curation did remove my motivation.Non-notable building with a smell of advertising, not exeptionally high, no notable architect, no sources. The Banner talk 21:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: building does not seem to be notable Keizers (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Briar Faraj[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was fails WP:NFOOTBALL as he hasn't played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. The article also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep (withdrawn by the nominator). (non-admin closure) Electric Catfish 23:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bouchard_I_of_Montmorency[edit]

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

Robert Keiden (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Woops. I wrote a description of what was wrong with this article, but it seems to have vanished. Let me try again. --Robert Keiden (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article (and its twin: Bouchard II of Montmorency) appear to be hoax or OR, based on real people but padded with nonsense. The given reference: [2] only mentions Montmorencys after ca. 1500. And the timeline (Bouchard I served Charlemagne? Bouchard II served Hugh Capet?) is impossible.

The second page could be salvageable (if renamed to Bouchard_I and significantly cleaned up.) I'm finding a few references.

(oh, great. The fr: articles corroborate some of the text of Bouchard_II_of_Montmorency but provide no references.
Found the source for BOTH en: articles. Its a straight up translation of: [3] which also uses the "Nobiliaire_universel" document as a reference. Possibly both should be CSD for copyright violation. Possibly both could be re-written from scratch, but I'm not convinced the Bouchards are notable. --Robert Keiden (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. Worse than that.  :( Primary source [4]
It's another volume of the work cited by both en: articles. And it does support the text, though much of that information is inconsistent with other sources. This AfD was filed in error, and looks like a failure. Sorry y'all. --Robert Keiden (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Gaymer Martin[edit]

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

The subject plainly fails the notability criteria for authors. Slashme (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the unencyclopedic tone and poor content of the article are not relevant to this deletion discussion, and are fixable, but anybody proposing to keep this article should explain how the subject meets any of the criteria at WP:AUTHOR. --Slashme (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you make a solid case. I'd be happy with a speedy keep as submitter based on that reasoning. --Slashme (talk) 13:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Flaxweiler. There is a broad consensus that there shouldn't be a stand-alone list on this subject at this time, but consensus is less clear on whether the result should be "merge" or "delete". I am closing as merge as I couldn't see a compelling reason brought forward that deletion would be preferable to merging. If any of the "delete" !voters feel that the list doesn't belong in the village article, that can be dealt with by regular editing and/or discussion on Talk:Flaxweiler. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Flaxweiler[edit]

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

I was hoping that I could create some stub articles for some of these, but I couldn't find any information about any of them, other than lists of mayors. Even the present incumbant has very little press coverage or mentions elsewhere. As such, I do not feel that this list will ever be more than a list of redlinks, which is not the purpose of such a list. Lists should predominently point to articles, which this one does not and probably never could. As such, I do not think that it meets the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. I note that all the other 'lists of mayors', although some of them have several redlinks, none of them have all redlinks. That itself is not a valid reason for deletion (per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), but the fact that - despite spending a couple of hours looking up all the names on the list - I was unable to find anything with which to create article is, in my opinion. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Postscript: If anyone can create some stub articles for the mayors which are reliably sourced, I'm happy to reconsider my recommendation to delete this list! Please see below links for sources for each of the 18 different mayors (I've included "Flaxweiler" in the search as I presume any source about the specific person will mention that as well as their name!)
Individual mayors
  • Michel Metzdorf: in office 1806-1810
  • Pierre Stemper: in office 1810-1812
  • Jean Nielles: in office 1813-1816
  • François Strasser: in office 1816-1819
  • Jean Huberty: in office 1819-1825
  • Jean Peters: in office 1825-1830
  • Michel Pettinger: in office 1830-1839
  • Jean-Pierre Huberty: in office 1854-1867
  • Michel Engel: in office 1867-1876
  • Antoine Boss: in office 1876-1887
  • Adolphe Musquar: in office 1889-1895
  • Jean Molitor: in office 1895-1928
  • Michel Schritz: in office 1929-1944
  • Jean Sturm: in office 1945-1945
  • Edouard Steffes: in office 1946-1965
  • Eugène Kauffmann: in office 1966-1970
  • Roger Lenert: in office 1970-2005
  • Théo Weirich: in office 2005-Present
Even with the current incumbant, I could find very little coverage - a couple of reports of his 2011 electoral success, a couple of routine announcements about him handing out awards, etc - no significant, indepth coverage. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redir This article is walking a fine line that I believe rests on the population of the host village/town/city. The people on the list do not have to be notable for the list itself to be notable. see here (not a jab... justa gentle poke postdlf ;). The question is; IS a list of mayors itself notable enough for its own (spun-out) article? A search for precedent "List of mayors of" finds no places with a population of 338 (as Flaxweiler says it has) has its own (spun-out) list. Merge & redir til such time as the population passes some magical number. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 18:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also tried to find something about the mayors/office of the mayor - but there was a similar lack of sources. The only sources I found gave the same list of mayors, but with no further details about either the individuals, or the office of mayor as a whole. Here are the French/German searches I tried (although I am not a German-speaker, and my French isn't brilliant, so perhaps someone fluent may find something useable). If I had been able to find something beyond a list of the mayors, I would have used that as a source, and would not have nominated it for deletion:
Although no one has suggested it, I should point out that this is something which I have tried to find sourcing for - albeit online only, as I am neither in Luxembourg nor fluently read the languages!
I should also point out that a commune is an LAU-2, the equivalent to Wards of the United Kingdom, with populations of between a few hundred up to several thousand - 109 of them have less than 10,000 inhabitants, only 7 having more. Flaxweiler has a population of about 1758. I'm not sure that this makes it large enough for its mayor to be inherently notable. That is a matter for discussion here - as a side-note, the '338' is the population of the town itself, rather than the Commune, and the mayor is the communal mayor, not just the town.
Incidentally, I'm quite happy for this to be a merge and redirect, as that meets all needs - and allows this article to be easily re-created should suitable sources ever be found. Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:35, 26 August 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) 22:25, 2 September 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 19:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not matter if the list is entirely RedLinks, the question is; is the position of Mayor WP:Notable, and is a complete listing of the office holders WP:Notable? I used to think that RedLink Lists were not worth it. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 22:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the question is more - "is the position of the mayor of a commune inherently notable". I would contend that it is not (obviously, as otherwise I wouldn't have started this discussion!) PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the Saint Queen Tamar[edit]

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

Another in a series of non-notable faux order articles created by User:Kimon. Only one source other than to that organization's website. No news hits, no Scholar hits, Google search dominated by Wiki mirrors and various heraldry blogs. Fails the GNG. Am open to a redirect to Georgian Legion. Ravenswing 19:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 4 September 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) 19:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Whether a self-appointed commission lists this on its website is beside the point; that no reliable sources discuss the subject in "significant detail" is. Ravenswing 07:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: ICOC is the most important authority in the world for the Chivaric Orders. How can you describe this commission as a "self-appointed" one? Do you recognize other authorities, other commissions? Are you an expert in chivarlic orders? danyamp (talk)
  • Reply: It *is* a self-appointed group; they admit so in their own materials. That being said, I advise you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding notability; WP:GNG, WP:V and WP:ORG are particularly informative links. Ravenswing 21:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: So, why don't you delete the wikipedia article regarding the Constantinian Order? Do you know that there are three constantinian orders that think everyone to be the real Order? What do you know of this world? Please, what is your experience in chivalric sciences? danyamp (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.40.153.254 (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anime Festival Wichita[edit]

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

Extremely limited coverage by reliable and independent sources. Esw01407 (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Neutral, as I'll give the benefit of a doubt that the Wichita Eagle hits are not press releases. It's such a shame that many news have to resort to pay-wall archives, especially if such sources are about obscure topics. However, without being able to see the actual hits, I can't say whether or not such coverage is reliable/significant/independent. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've searched ANN, most of the pages are Anime Festival Wichita Press Releases, none of which help establish notability. The only other article worth mentioning is the death of Cassandra Hodges, that is already referenced in the article. The Wichita Eagle might have sources, but there archives are a pay site. Esw01407 (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked in the Kansas press? —Farix (t | c) 00:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've searched in the major TV/Press groups in Wichita, I couldn't find anything. Esw01407 (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I seeing several hits from The Wichita Eagle. There were also a number of other hits from NewsLibrary.com. —Farix (t | c) 01:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of the convention, or of Hodges' death? If it's about the con, are they actual coverage, or are they press releases? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One would have to purchase the articles from NewsLibrary.com to be for sure that they are not press releases. But none of them appear to mention Hodges. —Farix (t | c) 01:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Press releases are still not independent coverage, even if they were released by an independent body, because the text was still made by people related to the company in question. And no, I don't think it's a good idea to ignore the rules at the moment. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:57, 10 September 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 19:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Sutton[edit]

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

The two sources in the article are a primary source from the US Department of Justice and a news report of Sutton's conviction. I can find no other reliable sources, so, if nobody else can do so, this should be deleted per WP:NOT#NEWS. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 04:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Babar[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:BLP1E as only notable for gaining a CBE. The entire article is repeated at 2008 New Year Honours so there is no loss of content. As a British civil servant it is very unlikely that her activities are covered in reliable sources and I have been unable to find any through internet searches. If there are additional sources to expand the article then that is great, if not, then the content can be retained in the 2008 article until we have more source material. Road Wizard (talk) 18:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy with whatever consensus comes out of this, but to put the award in context, there are up to 8,960 people with a CBE at any one time. If we assume that most CBEs are awarded to people in mid life we could be looking at 18k to 26k individuals each century as a very rough estimate. Admittedly many of those will have other reliable sources to support an article but we could end up with a huge number of stubs that repeat the same content that is in the honour list articles.
This is not an argument along the lines of other stuff does not exist but just an attempt to clarify the scale of the issue. Road Wizard (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
that numerical estimate shows we can easily accommodate the material. 9000 articles is a mere 0.25 % of the size of Wikipedia, even assuming none are notable on any other grounds. The order only goes back to 1817, so it 100 years from now, we'll still have less than 50K. That'll be a similar proportion to the probable size of Wikipedia. Even a paper reference book could accomodate that. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not pointing it out in terms of Wikipedia's physical capacity to hold the data. My point is that we may end up with many thousands of single line articles that repeat word for word their corresponding single line entry in the honour list article. It is only a very small proportion of civil servants whose work puts them in the media spotlight (such as press officers or those who are called in front of a Parliamentary committee) and civil servants are discouraged from doing anything in their personal lives that would draw public attention to their status as civil servants. Other than people in high profile posts we won't find any source material unless they do something noteworthy (I was going to say notable but that has a loaded meaning here) before they join the civil service or after they leave.
If consensus is that we retain these duplicated single line data entries in thousands of articles then I will continue assessing them as stubs and hope that someday we may be in a position to expand them. My practical view though is to wait until we have material that doesn't duplicate their honour list article before creating the article. Road Wizard (talk) 05:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:28, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy close; wrong forum. Discussion on the deletion of redirects or conversion of redirects into articles should be done at Redirects for discussion. I will open an RfD momentarily. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duck face[edit]

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

I think the article should better be restored; but this redirect is not helpful in any way and worse than nothing. KnightMove (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Martín Mantovani[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested without providing a reason Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gibraltarpedia[edit]

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

Non Notable. May be kept in wikipedia or project namespace, but not in the main space. — Zanaq (?) 16:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the sources in the article are at the same time almost all available sources. It is very unknown, much more unknown than Monmouthpedia. Do not use wikipedia to generate notability, not even (and especially not) for our own projects. — Zanaq (?) 12:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No-one's "generating notability". The notability is indicated by the independent reliable news sources cited in the article, which is a main requisite of WP:GNG. After all, there's a Wikipedia article about Wikipedia too! Sionk (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion this article fails to meet WP:GNG, mainly the criteria "Sources" and "Independent of the subject": the sources are mainly gibraltarian websites and some sources are on the same website (so are the same source). This is supposed to be an online project, and for notable (western) online projects I expect a lot of google hits and a high Alexa rank. 3000 hits is not much, even the 60.000 hits for Monmouthpedia are not much in my opinion. — Zanaq (?) 14:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cambrian Welfare RFC[edit]

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

Article is about a rugby union team in the seventh tier of Welsh rugby. The team does not meet WP:GNG or WikiProject Rugby's notability criteria for clubs. The club is young in comparison with many Welsh clubs so not of great note in that respect. The article seems to be simply a repository for large amounts of statistics/results for the club, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Sionk (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 28 August 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, Yunshui 雲‍水 07:54, 3 September 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) 15:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TLT Group[edit]

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

A very small (45 employees), non notable company - Written like an advertisement Itemirus (talk) 07:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 4 September 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) 15:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MB2_(Entertainer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
MB2_(Entertainer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable - no indication of importance - Only source is a scantily viewed video on youtube - Possible autobiography Itemirus (talk) 07:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 4 September 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) 15:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger (pornographic actor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO and has been subject of recent major BLP violations Gaijin42 (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. — Frankie (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. A lot of the arguments given in this discussion are not valid arguments for deletion, and participants who have not yet done so would be well advised to read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. After excluding these arguments, there is consensus that the coverage in independent reliable sources is enough to satisfy the general notability guideline (even if we do not count nyteknik.se). There doesn't seem to be much support for a merge, and a few of the merge arguments were based on E-Cat's fringe status, which in itself is not a valid argument for merging or for deletion. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Energy Catalyzer[edit]

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

Delete this article because it represents just undue weight to a device impossible even only to define with independent sources (the definition that is actually written in the page is wrong and unsupported, more details can be found here). TheNextFuture (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2012 (UTC)— TheNextFuture (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It doesn't matter if it works or not. The article is about E-Cat, so can you define it possibly with independent sources? If you cannot, you can try also with the declarations of Rossi (even if independent source are strictly required by wikipedia). Good Luck! --TheNextFuture (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are a large number of primary sources in the article, principally ny teknik, but there are some independent sources too like forbes, focus and Wired. I wouldn't mind trimming the fat that is solely based on involved non-independent sources; and a merge is always possible. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, there is Forbes who says that about the E-Cat "there's no real news". So this case is really simple, we have even sources that state that we are keeping a separated article about no real news. --TheNextFuture (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge works for me too. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I oppose outright deletion, I am amenable to a merge to Rossi's article, if that's the way others would prefer to take it. Mangoe (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other similar machines, like those of Arata, are reasonably not present in wikipedia. At the moment, this device has nothing to do with LERN which can be supported with independent sources (in contrast to what is written actually in the article). So it is an undue weight to a claim of only one person. --TheNextFuture (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arata machine got almost ZERO coverage from media compared with the coverage deserved by the media towards the Energy Catalyzer.--Insilvis (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, at least from the scientific point of view. Consider also that the same discussion is valid for the machine of Fleischmann–Pons, which had definitely higher media coverage compared to E-Cat. --TheNextFuture (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong, I like a lot the E-Cat. But here we are discussing about the article and especially about the missing sources, not of what I like or not. --TheNextFuture (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
nyteknik is a primary source since they are closely involved with Rossi. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Ny Teknik article is about Rossi's latest device, not the E-Cat as described by our article - there are no reliable sources on the new device. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Ny Teknik article does mention also the E-Cat as described by our article, according to the words of physicist Magnus Holm cited at the end of the article.--Insilvis (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"We work for a separate validation of the 1 MW plant full operation, says Magnus Holm" (via Google translate). Not much of a mention, and anyway, it has already been made clear on several occasions that over-reliance on Ny Teknic as a source is highly problematic. And don't you think that it might be better to describe Holm as the source does, "CEO of Hydro Fusion", rather than as "physicist" - I'd think that 'CEO' might imply 'COI' here.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you are right AndyTheGrump: physicist Magnus Holm is the "CEO of Hydro Fusion".--Insilvis (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to the merge - issue already discussed two times in the past. My opposition to this merge stems from the simple fact, according to what it is reported, that the Energy Catalyzer is the result of a team work developed by inventor Andrea Rossi together with physicist Sergio Focardi.--Insilvis (talk) 17:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, there is no team work in the E-Cat development: "with the support from physicist Sergio Focardi". The source to this sentence is just the list of the professors of the Bologna university (the same as support that I have won the Nobel prize with the list of inmates of my apartment). The problem here is that Focardi doesn't know anything about the inside of the device, as he said clearly the last year. The Italian patent reports as only inventor "Andrea Rossi", without any mention to Focardi. --TheNextFuture (talk) 17:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Insilvis, Please do not !vote twice. And can you point to an independent reliable source that states that Focardi even knows what is inside the E-Cat? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TheNextFuture,
these are some of the initial references in the Energy Catalyzer page:
[10][11][12] where it is written that Andrea Rossi developed the Energy Catalyzer with Sergio Focardi.
AndyTheGrump,
what I know is what I can find here on Wikipedia, like this (English subtitles available) from TED Talk where Focardi illustrates his work with Rossi on the Energy Catalyzer.--Insilvis (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The sources don't say that Focardi has developed the E-Cat together with Rossi. Focardi has done some works in the contest of nichel cold fusion and somehow Rossi said that he was inspired by them. Focardi says also that there were some meetings many years ago in which he explained to Rossi his previous devices and some of his ideas. He has also participated to some demonstrations until the beginning of the last year, but then he quite disappears. Also the patent (written by Rossi) reports as only inventor "Andrea Rossi" without any mention to Focardi. In one of the article of our notes instead it is written: "Sergio Focardi [...] non ci risulta che abbia ancora avuto la possibilità di studiare la macchina e lui, interrogato, afferma di saperne quanto noi", "As far as we know Sergio Focardi has not already had the possibility of studying the machine and, when we ask, he says to know as much as us". --TheNextFuture (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Focardi made no mention whatsoever of a presence of Rossi's supposed 'secret catalysts' in the E-Cat - which rather supports my suggestion that he doesn't know what is inside. Incidentally, Focardi's statements about Gamma radiation flatly contradict what Rossi told the Florida Bureau of Radiation Control. No surprises there: once again, the 'E-Cat' is whatever Rossi wishes to claim it to be, as circumstances require. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TheNextFuture,
nice try. But you are 100% WRONG.
This is the complete paraghaph cited by you:
Sergio Focardi, 79 anni, "padre" delle reazioni nichel-idrogeno in Italia, è visibilmente affaticato e si tiene in disparte; Giuseppe Levi, fisico sperimentale, collega di Ferrari a Bologna, è inavvicinabile. Finché non decide di lanciarsi in un'accorata promozione dell'invenzione di Rossi: siamo sorpresi dalla ferma fiducia dello scienziato nell'E-Cat, in contrasto con la cautela di tanti altri ricercatori, perché non ci risulta che abbia ancora avuto la possibilità di studiare la macchina e lui, interrogato, afferma di saperne quanto noi.
TRANSLATION:
Sergio Focardi, 79, the "father" of the [research about nuclear] reactions with nickel and hydrogen in Italy, is apparently fatigued and stand by; Giuseppe Levi, experimental physicist, colleague of [Loris] Ferrari at UNIBO [=Bologna], is unapproachable. Until he decides to start a passionate promotion of Rossi's invention: we are surprised by the firm trust shown by the scientist in the E-Cat, in contrast with the cautiousness of many other researchers, (NOTEbyInsilvis: Levi is a researcher at UNIBO) because we are not aware that he has indeed had the possibility to study the machine and him, inquired by us, affirm to know about it as much as us.
Therefore, it is clear that the text mentioned by you, TheNextFuture, refers to Giuseppe Levi and not to Sergio Focardi.--Insilvis (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For me it is clear that the meaning is the opposite, Levi is unapproachable and then Focardi starts a passionate promotion of Rossi's invention. In any case, the main sources are the patents (written directly by Rossi) in which the only inventor is "Andrea Rossi" (in fact he is the only one involved in the commercial management of the "E-Cat" and of its selling). The contribution of Focardi is completely neglected and it remains impossible to establish. Also in many of the websites that support explicitly the E-Cat, Focardi is an unspecified "scientific consultant" ("Andrea Rossi and his scientific consultant Sergio Focardi" and "His research, aided by his scientific consultant Sergio Focardi" just as example). --TheNextFuture (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot answer you because I am so angry for your behaviour that I would be immediately banned from Wikipedia should I express my view about your behaviour in this specific situation! Translating is something I hate, but I was force to do it because you decided to OMIT a crucial point in your quotation and so the sense of the paragraph was completely turned upside down by you. The discussion is closed for me, let the readers decide who is right and who is not.--Insilvis (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS
http://ecatreviews.com/ AND http://rossienergycatalyzers.com ???
Are these reliable sources according to you??? --Insilvis (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't believe in me and you don't like translations, you can look at the paper signed by Rossi and also Focardi, this is in English. Inside and in the abstract is linked directly the international patent application, where again Rossi is the only name written in the field "inventor". So also the same Focardi agrees that Rossi is the only inventor. For the rest, I can only say to you: "Peace and love, welcome to the world of E-Cat, where everything and the opposite of everything can be written in the same moment". Anyway, we have already explained our points of view, question closed. --TheNextFuture (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC) PS: Considering that now the unspecified support, and I repeat support ("with support from physicist Sergio Focardi"), of Focardi has as a source the list of the professors of Bologna, everything is better.[reply]
Merge works for me, it looks like the sources have died off now, and in the long run this will probably fade into the background; Rossi is what is truly notable. Much of the content in the Energy Catalyzer article is primary sourced and about random demonstrations at places, so the trim and merge would work. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide me just only one source about the E-Cat (and not of Rossi and his declarations)? --TheNextFuture (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, like the one published today? --Insilvis (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, this is only an article about a future probable business between Rossi and some Swedish company for a new device (maybe improved?), and it does not describe the E-Cat as itself. The net is full of those articles, and up to now some supposed contracts signed by Rossi are at end failed. By coincidence, about the E-Cat it says only that there wasn't an energy gain in one of the demonstrations in Bologna in September, again the opposite of what is written by other sources (and by wikipedia article). Or is this again a misleading due the automatic translators of Swedish? --TheNextFuture (talk) 21:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"We work for a separate validation of the 1 MW plant full operation, says Magnus Holm" (via Google translate). So the article does mention also the E-Cat as described by our article, according to the words of physicist Magnus Holm, who is the CEO of Hydro Fusion, cited at the end of the article.--Insilvis (talk) 06:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS: for completeness, I include also the translation of the sentence "Vid investerarnas mätning den 6 september i Bologna kunde dock ingen värmeenergi konstateras utöver den inmatade elektriska effekten." given by the translator: "When investors measuring 6 September in Bologna, however, could no heat energy is found beyond the input electrical power." So, accordingly to this webpage it seems complete false that the E-Cat is an heat source, as written in the first line of the article ("The Energy Catalyzer (also called E-Cat) is a [...] heat source"). --TheNextFuture (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still misleading! This other sentence you are now referring to was the part of the article that is, according to your word, "about a future probable business between Rossi and some Swedish company for a new device (maybe improved?), and it does not describe the E-Cat as itself."--Insilvis (talk) 06:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sincerely, I don't understand what do you mean. There are no reference in that sentence to the business, but to the heat measurements that were done ("no heat energy is found"). I don't know exactly to what machine is referred this sentence, but it doesn't matter. The point is not if the E-Cat works or not, but just only that about it you cannot write anything, even if you look only at the primary sources (and in principle you should have independent sources). --TheNextFuture (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, I can only smile and repeat again: "Peace and love, welcome to the world of E-Cat, where everything and the opposite of everything can be written (and now said) in the same moment". For this reason I support the merge of the essential news to the article of Rossi. --TheNextFuture (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still misleading information!
In the video posted just above, Rossi said that Focardi does not know how thick the lead walls surrounding the E-Cat are, but as you can see from the photos shown during the TED talk of Focardi (see here) there was no lead coverage at the beginning of the development. In other words, the lack of knowledge about how thick the lead walls surrounding the E-Cat are does not mean that Focardi did not participate in the development of the Energy Catalyzer since early stages.--Insilvis (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rossi does not know how thick the lead walls are because "He does not know how the reactor is built". How much clearer do you want it? Bhny (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Focardi doesn't know what the e-cat catalyzer is. He says- "There is a compound that I do not know (nor want to know) that is meant to facilitate the reaction. " [[14]]
Apart from the fact that Wikipedia IS NOT a blog, and the sources you brought are simply UNUSABLE on Wikipedia, if you know Italian I suggest you to watch this video: Focardi says (as you reported) that there is indeed a catalyst and that he does not know its nature and he does not want to know its nature. However the journalist (who probably is a bit clever than others) asks Focardi if he has an idea about the nature of this catalyst. Focardi promptly responds: "yes, I have. However, because it is a secret I prefer not to tell you". So Focardi affirms that he does not know the nature of this catalyst, and he does not want to know it, and even if he has an idea of what the catalyst is he does not want to tell. Here I have to stop, but my personal opinion is that he knows everything. Otherwise he would not have any problem to answer the question posed by the journalist. About your other consideration: "He does not know how the reactor is built" is what Rossi says at THAT POINT of the video you point out, but if you watch the previous thirty seconds of that video it is clear that Rossi is talking about the lead walls surrounding the reactor. In other words, Rossi refers just to the nuclear envelope.--Insilvis (talk) 23:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am only trying to show you that it is obviously not teamwork by showing you Rossi and Focardi admitting as much. Somehow your personal opinion contradicts what they themselves say. Bhny (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So in the video you brought to our attention Rossi and Focardi were interviewed together, cheek-to-cheek, just because it is not a team work between the two, right?--Insilvis (talk) 06:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic is to ignore what they say and measure how close their cheeks are? Bhny (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if for no other reason than to preserve the edit history so that when the truth is known, we can track the evolution of a controversial topic. Jim Bowery (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is merged, the edit history will be preserved, as is usual in such circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am a new user of wikipedia, but I have been for a long time an ip contributor. A separate article for the E-Cat is an undue weight as itself, since for example there isn't (rightly) a separate article for the Fleischmann–Pons device, which had greater media coverage and scientific attention. Rossi is notable per se, because of his recent and previous controversial attempts in the energy world (i.e. also Petroldragon). Merging to the page of Rossi is the only solution, nothing of clear and with sources can be written in an article about the E-Cat (look above at the discussion about the role of Focardi if you want an example). Instead we have a lot of sources that describe the behavior and the declarations of Rossi, as the major (and I would say unique) contributor to the E-Cat affairs. It doesn't matter if the E-Cat works or not (we have an article about Telepathy), it doesn't matter also if it is a black box (Windows 7 is for some aspects a black box), but it is important that "If anything is 'notable' it is the only thing that is verifiable - that Rossi has made a long series of claims ..." as AndyTheGrump has written above. In any case, even if you keep it, the article definitively needs a lot of corrections. --TheNextFuture (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After reading your answer, I persist in thinking you do not understand correctly Wikipedia principles. Croquant (talk) 19:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you are right, I was thinking that writing unsupported facts without any sources is against the wikipedia principles. Clearly it is not so. We are unable to establish accordingly to the sources even who is the inventor of the supposed device (look above, and we didn't discuss about the supposed cold fusion, radiations, heat source, commercial plans, ecc), of what principles are we talking about? Nothing about the E-Cat can be written following the sources, is it possible in wikipedia to write completely unsupported articles? I don't want to change your opinion at all costs, but please think about this point. --TheNextFuture (talk) 11:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It does seem that Andrea Rossi was not notable in many English sources until after the Energy Catalyzer - does this mean, if there is a merge, that the Andrea Rossi article ought to be merged into the Energy Catalyzer one? Tmccc (talk) 07:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He was notable before the Energy Catalyzer because of Petrol Dragon etc. Italian sources contribute to notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:CRYSTALBALL - and note that "wait and see" arguments have frequently been made in the past. We've waited, and seen nothing but Rossi's usual hogwash. There is no reason whatsoever to assume this time will be any different. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
off-topic WP:OR about primary sources of no relevence to the article, and even less to this discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. 
Alanf777 (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. If the " Non-WP:RS evidence" that Alanf777 refers to above is the same as he's just cited on the article talk page, it seems to be a document from NASA which mentions the Leonardo corporation in passing, while stating that there is no evidence that the device works, together with material from pesn.com, a website so fringe that even he is well aware we wouldn't trust it for the time of day. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the preceding "P.S" paragraph AndyTheGrump makes invalid assumptions about what I said here, and then (presumably he) hides my responses. I therefore moved the "HAT" command to include his comment as well as my response to it. Alanf777 (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The NASA document referenced in Talk does NOT dismiss LENR as "pathological science", correctly identifies it as "high risk/high payoff" and, in fact, recommends a small (in comparison to other activities) study to keep track of LENR. (Curiously, not even Rossi thinks that the eCat is suitable at present for aircraft.)
Although pesn.com is fringe by wiki standards a March 2012 quote by Bardi in the introductory paragraph refers to an article in the pesn.com site indicating that Allen no longer supports Rossi. I simply pointed to a recent article which shows that Allen DOES now support Rossi. (I also illustrated some bias and/or errors in Bardi's article : he says that the University of Bologna "wisely withdrew" from the contract, whereas it was actually Rossi who withdrew by not making the required payment.) So by wiki standards an outdated quote from a supposedly WP:RS source over-rides the actual current opinions of the person being quoted. Alanf777 (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Talk section is at
8 Ugo Bardi Quote in the Introduction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Energy_Catalyzer#Ugo_Bardi_Quote_in_the_Introduction
Alanf777 (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Which has been "collapsed" with a threat of arbitration) Alanf777 (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out that ONE of my "wait and see" predictions has already come to pass. SGS Italy has issued a Safety Certificate for the 1MW eCat. http://htmlimg3.scribdassets.com/20mcesnry81t2vuk/images/1-9dd4ee94b9.jpg Alanf777 (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure of the relevance for an AfD. Something which does nothing is perfectly safe; the primary source doesn't add anything. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A clearer and more complete copy is at (NON-WP:RS) http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/EFA-rep-1107.pdf which clarifies that this is a safety certificate only, and not a verification of claimed performance. It is nevertheless a required (if not sufficient) pre-requisite for commercial sales of the eCat, and as such represents a significant step in its commercialization. Alanf777 (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's why the Italian edition of the International Business Times inteviews the CEO of Prometeon (ie the official Italian licensee of the Energy Catalyzer) to reveal their business plan:
IBTimes: In una sua precedente intervista ha dichiarato di essere rimasto impressionato del fatto che l’E-cat funzionasse per 12 ore ininterrottamente senza energia elettrica. Siamo di fronte ad un cambiamento epocale nel modo di concepire l’energia?
TRANSLATION:
IBTimes: In a previous interview, you affirmed to be impressed by the fact that the E-Cat worked for 12 hours straight without electricity. Are we facing a sea change in the way of thinking about energy?
--Insilvis (talk) 08:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I love the quote about how Leonardo Corp has a computer and they can see our wikipedia edits! "Yes, there are people … changing Wikipedia entries with blatant falsehoods. However both the Leonardo Corporation, which is fully equipped on the computer it is able to easily trace those responsible" Bhny (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So yet another pointless interview with an E-Cat promoter. We know they make wild claims. We also know that such wild claims have never been followed up by verifiable evidence. The International Business Times certainly doesn't seem to be reporting that anything works. Then again, the 'hot cat' tests that the promoter is speaking about so enthusiastically seems to be the same one that the Swedish investors reported didn't work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say it was pointless. Are you able to read Italian, by the way? Tmccc (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is an interview, made by a business publication, to the CEO of a company about their business plan.--Insilvis (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From the website of the company, [[15]], I read "Il sito ufficiale italiano del rivoluzionario reattore a fusione fredda ..." ("the official italian website of the revolutionary reactor working with cold fusion". Now, do you really believe that the CEO of the supposed "italian official distributor" of the E-Cat could say that the E-Cat is an hoax? Again, nothing new ... again a demonstration that nothing can be written about the E-Cat, at least with independent sources. --TheNextFuture (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the fascinating part of the e-Cat isn't even Andrea Rossi or the device itself, but the hoard of "fans" that seem to keep this whole thing going. There are dozens of websites, industrial designers, and what seems like a legion of true believers that are infatuated with the idea. That the Rossi dog and pony shows seem to fuel excitement in that legion of fans is even more interesting. That seems to me as the real story here that needs an article, even if the e-Cat itself is a total fraud. If anything, the "independent reliable sources" seem to be reporting more about that phenomena than anything else. --Robert Horning (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find any content that should be added to this article that can be backed up by reliable sources, is verifiable, and includes information not already in this article, I will back you up to get it included. While there are certainly several editors working on this article who would like to chop this whole article down to one sentence saying "The E-Cat is a fraud invented by Andrea Rossi." and have that added to the Rossi article, I think there are better NPOV ways of dealing with this issue. Please help us make Wikipedia better by at least trying to make a good faith effort with this article. I admit there is an article ownership issue with this article, but that just shows some of the issues related to this article needing a wider range of voices participating in its development. --Robert Horning (talk) 05:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"it should remain as a stinky stain on the reputation of WP." nice motivation. I can just invite you, as Robert Horning, to edit it, but remember to include independent sources. --TheNextFuture (talk) 08:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For myself, I'm pretty satisfied with the article as-is and don't see any significant problems, including any rationale for why it needs to be deleted... which is sort of the point why this AfD is even being done. There has certainly been edit warring going on as well reverting good faith edits in some cases without cause, so I do think the above criticism has some merit. At the moment I don't see any glaring omissions that can be accounted from credible sources though, but I will evaluate suggested sources that are posted on the article talk page if there might be something worth looking at. I'm also trying to offer a hand out here to suggest that those editing this article aren't necessarily out to prove Rossi is a fraud and are biased to writing an Andrea Rossi hit piece.... which goes against WP:NPOV and is a foundational principle of Wikipedia. Reminding editors involved here that we need to consider all viewpoints when writing articles is very well justified. --Robert Horning (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the original proposer of the Delete seems to have disappeared, and since there seems to be an overwhelming majority for keep -- there's only ONE other vote for delete (and only a few arguing for a merge)--- isn't it time to wrap this up? And put a time limit (say a year) before any other nomination is accepted ? Alanf777 (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to propose a change in AfD policies, this isn't the place to do it. And why do you say that the proposer has disappeared? [16] AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
a) OK. b) User:TheNextFuture Seems to be "redlinked" Alanf777 (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe he was just the first voter. Anyway, there's only one other delete vote. Is there a record of who made the nomination then? Alanf777 (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The redlink just means he/she hasn't created a user page. As the page history shows, TheNextFuture started the AfD, though I can't see what difference it makes - anyone with an account can propose one, or an IP can ask someone with an account to do it for them - see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Anyway WP:Articles for deletion says "at least 7 days". We're there. Alanf777 (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'At least'. I'm sure someone will get around to it soon enough. Anyway, what's the hurry? The result looks like a foregone conclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ... maybe just a propensity to shed the "scarlet letter" ? Alanf777 (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not disappeared, I just believe I have written clear my point of view and that is meaningless to continue up to infinity to say, for example below, that "reliable sources" are primary for the E-Cat, the device; that "notable" refers to Andrea Rossi, etc ... --TheNextFuture (talk) 09:23, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing[edit]

Not really relevant to this AfD - I suspect that the 'keep because it is notable bullshit' !votes have won the day, and it has always been apparent that cold fusion/LENR boosters have been active on Wikipedia. There have usually been enough responsible contributors around to keep their hype out of the article, though a few more wouldn't do any harm. Eventually most of this lot will probably move elsewhere, as even they get fed up with Rossi's endless 'jam tomorrow' promotions, contradictory statements (anyone know where the factory is this week?) and broken promises. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, one person (not me) suggested "Please consider going to the article, read it and vote on its truswothiness, objectivity, etc. at the bottom of the page." There was some discussion. The advice of another was : "My suggestion. If you are not a Wikipedia editor, *do not register in order to vote.* That will be totally transparent to the Wikipedia community ...". Specifically, I did not canvas for anything. Alanf777 (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I informed arbcom first but they never got back. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness to what is actually happening, how many people from this mailing list actually came here to vote, and will it actually influence the outcome of this AfD in any way? Fine, you've noted that this is happening. Perhaps the closing admin will take that into account. It should be pointed out that WP:VOTE also notes that the point is not simply to count votes but rather to engage in a process to reach consensus and to suggest a resolution. A bunch of "KEEP" or even "DELETE" votes is not going to really change the outcome if there isn't some meat to those votes that is based upon policy and logical reasoning. If something like this AfD encourages more people to participate in the article development process, it should be welcomed and not rejected. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like around 6 editors came to vote via canvassing; and yes it did have an impact as it sidelines the merge argument. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These announcements are typical in this kind of pseudoscience, the AfD of the E-Cat in it.wiki had the same problem, that time on facebook: here. This time at least it is written "read it and vote on its truswothiness", that time there was a direct invitation to play with the rules. The arguments about Essén and Kullander are wrong, but I don't want to start an another flame after Focardi. Notable does not mean a sacrifice of the sources, the sad point is that this discussion is too focused again on the notable part. Even more sadly, I don't think that this is due to that post. --TheNextFuture (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Starar[edit]

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

This appears to be a (reasonably) well-written page about a non-notable band. Their is some independent coverage of the band available: this blog post from the Coventry Telegraph and this interview from This is Lincolnshire are already included in the article, and a Gnews search also brought up this story about their neighbours complaining about the noise that their band makes during rehearsals. That does not add up to meeting WP:MUSICBIO in my eyes - I'd welcome your thoughts on this. Thanks. — sparklism hey! 14:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism hey! 14:44, 3 September 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) 15:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Makhlai[edit]

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

Heavily reliant on one source  thesimsmania  09:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 4 September 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) 15:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Rossier[edit]

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

I had considered PRODing this, even after cleaning out the puff, but it would probably only invite the addition of the few references (including ones in other languages) that I found but which are not all RS and do not provide enough scope, number, and depth to assert notability per WP:CREATIVE. Mostly are listings and short reviews of the movies. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 4 September 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) 14:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 16:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Open terrain[edit]

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

WP:OR mini-essay. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 14:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, do you have a reference? Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 15:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not cleanup, but you're welcome to work on the article yourself. If you have performed the search I described and can see that these three sentences are not some form of original research but simply describe the term, you should request that this AfD be closed. (Though honestly you should search for information about a topic before creating an AfD and involving everyone else.) --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 16:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I get it, but do you have a reference? It would make everything easier. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 16:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm sure it would be easier if other people went and did basic research for you when you don't feel like doing it yourself. But that's not what AfD is for. If you want to improve the article, click on some of the "Find sources" links that you yourself created above with this AfD and grab some of the copious source material about the military concept of "open terrain" that is available. There are some actual military publications being returned by Google Books, you don't even have to go to the effort to search on a DOD site or in other specialized search engines. But if you don't want to work on the article, don't try to use a threat of deletion as leverage to get other people to do it for you. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 16:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't really deal in "deletion threats" as I don't have access to the delete button. To be honest, I don't really think there's much to say than is already said in the article, which is just an unsourced definition. Sorry if you think me lazy for not being able to sort it out myself, but hey, if you can't be bothered to work on it either that's totally fine. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 17:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you nominated the article for deletion, it doesn't appear that you think it's totally fine for other people to not work on it. It instead appears that you want it deleted unless other people work on it. That's what I'm talking about. If you're actually unable to do the research to determine what source material is available concerning the topic of an article (which I doubt is the case) then you should not be nominating articles for deletion because doing so is the basic essential step in determining whether a topic meets the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia - you should not simply take a guess at whether or not there's further material on a topic and create an AfD to prompt others to do that research.

Besides that, "it's just a definition" and "it's unsourced" are completely different deletion rationales from the nomination. If you just personally want it deleted and don't actually have any underlying valid policy concerns, and you're just going to keep tossing out whatever arguments you can come up with to see what sticks, there's even less reason for anyone else to go off on goose chases to try to satisfy the complaint you have at any particular moment. With the amount of hits your own ((find sources)) links are generating, the burden's on you to show that none of these sources demonstrate that the topic "open terrain" satisfies inclusion criteria for Wikipedia - if there's source material out there, per policy the article should remain.

As S Marshall says below, there's no reason why "open terrain" should be a redlink. Inclusion is based upon the characteristics of the topic itself, not anything having to do with the writing of the article that's on Wikipedia at any given moment. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 16:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for your advice. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 18:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you have not done any research to evaluate whether the topic of this article meets Wikipedia inclusion policy, do not intend to do such research, and your desire to delete the article has nothing to do with believing that it's an essay or contains originally-researched information not published elsewhere, you should say so explicitly because they are important points for other editors evaluating your nomination for deletion. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 19:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:35, 11 September 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.

Raja Easa Saleh Al Gurg[edit]

The result of this discussion was speedy delete requested by author WP:CSD#G7. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan King[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL by never having played senior international football or in a fully professional league as listed here; no evidence of the subject receiving enough non-trivial media coverage to pass the general notability guideline. PROD to this effect removed without comment when his new club was added, but that club plays in the Norwegian second tier, which is not fully pro. Struway2 (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qlibc[edit]

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

more of an advertisement than an encyclopedic article; appears low popularity judging by search for web references and the software library's Web page forum activity. Suggest that notability is insufficient to merit an entry here. Rob.desbois (talk) 12:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Lucknow[edit]

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

Unlike other major cities like Mumbai and Delhi, Lucknow has very little high-rise buildings and does not warrant an article, due to lack of sources available. Secret of success (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could both of you please point out to the sources available? Both the sources in the article do not have any reliability and cannot be enough to establish notability. Secret of success (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment below for an Emporis source. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 26 August 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, Theopolisme 17:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the above comments. None of the buildings pass the notability test and just the sources from Emporis are not sufficient to maintain the article. Secret of success (talk) 12:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I read the comments above prior to my above comment post, which simply provides another source for editors to consider. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:02, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no question of "considering" here, rather it is supposed to be straightforward, does the article pass WP:GNG or not? Since we do not have any sources other than Emporis, which itself has a high amount of suspicion surrounding it, it does not, and hence it should be deleted. Secret of success (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep. Consensus is that the topic does have sufficient notability and sources to be a stand alone article; and there is also rough agreement that the article as currently stands is inappropriate, and likely meets WP:PLOT which is a valid reason for deletion. Advice at WP:ATD supports looking at editing alternatives to deletion when the topic is notable but the article is problematic, and there are calls for upmerging to allow sourced material to be gathered in the parent article until such time as the material grows sufficiently to allow it to be split out per WP:Summary style into a standalone. So, the situation is that the article as stands can be called either as a delete/redirect/merge due to failing WP:Plot, while the topic itself meets our inclusion criteria. The decision as to which way to go rests on the consensus of the discussion, and the consensus here is to keep the article, so it is appropriate that the article is kept, though with a flag that the article as it stands needs attention. Given that the consensus is to keep the topic rather than the article, and that a formal "Keep" would in essence be validating an article that comes up against WP:Not, I feel it would be fairer to close this as no consensus, defaulting to keep. It would be helpful if those involved in this discussion do not just to move on after this AfD is closed, but engage in improving the article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Amended following discussion on my talkpage SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)][reply]

Ankh-Morpork City Watch[edit]

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

A fictional organization in a series of popular novels. Tagged for failing WP:N since January, entirely written as in-universe plot summary incompatible with WP:WAF, and entirely unsourced. Such content is better suited to fan wikis; any necessary plot summary belongs in the article about the respective novels or in one character list (there are currently far too many).  Sandstein  17:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete While it pains me deeply to say this and verges on self-harm, the article fails basic notability criteria and is not professionally written and should be deleted. (Such recondite material should not be freely disseminated among the plebs anyways) Ankh.Morpork 22:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Weak Keep. - It is apparent that the policies governing fictional work are unclear and inconsistently applied. It is a fine line what constitutes a secondary topic and requires independent sourcing, and what falls under the notability umbrella that applies to the primary subject. This and the scattering of sources produced that allude to the City Watch have led me to change my vote. Ankh.Morpork 11:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Policies are on the contrary quite clear and, judging by AfD outcomes for fictional elements, consistently implemented. I don't see, however, what you're calling "primary subject" and "secondary topic". All topics on Wikipedia require secondary independent sourcing (see WP:PSTS and WP:GNG), and article about a work of fiction itself require as much coverage from independent sources than articles about seperate fictional elements (see WP:WAF).Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Discworld series is referred to in a plethora of independent sources and and were the material pertaining to the City Watch to be included in that article - as I believe it originally was, the fact that many character details were based on primary sources would not pose a problem as this is an integral informative aspect of the series. Now that this material has been devolved into a separate article for convenience, it strikes me as excessively anal that this relevant material should suddenly be subject to stringent requirements. It seems analogous to articles on TV series that have split-off articles detailing individual episodes for each season without much secondary sourcing. Yet they exist because they are relevant and describe an overall notable topic. Ankh.Morpork 12:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the WP:WAF guideline explains, and the WP:NOTPLOT policy more generally states, articles need to be more than just a collection of plot details, and though they are indeed important elements in an article, there always has to be a certain balance between plot and external commentary (with more emphasis on commentary). And that works for all kind of articles, per WP:NRVE, "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition". Discworld itself is certainly a notable topic, but that is not necessarily true of its seperate fictional elements. That might seem excessively anal to you, but the various policies and guideline correspond to what the community wants Wikipedia to be, and there's no reason Discworld should be an exception. You can always ask for changes or even demotion at policy talkpages or RfC, but AfDs are there to see whether articles meet current policies and guidelines, not to change them. Also, it's not because 4 million articles exist that they've all been checked and approved as policy-compliant, if you feel some, like individual TV show episodes, don't meet policies or guideline, you're free to nominate them for deletion.Folken de Fanel (talk) 13:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I may have been unclear. I am not citing the mere existence of parallel Wikipedia articles as reason to preserve this article. Rather, I am using them to demonstrate how Wiki policies have been customarily interpreted regarding these kind of works. I repeat that what constitutes a separate ancillary to the primary topic and what is core elemental material, which may employ primary sources, is uncertain, and not to be determined by whether Wikipedia decided to accord that particular aspect an individual page for convenience. Ankh.Morpork 14:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I still don't see what you mean. If you're referring to the mere fact that someone could write an article that is seemingly against policy, then that's bound to happen with 17 million registered users (who can be new and inexperienced or ill-intentioned), that Wikipedia is difficult to manage does not mean "policies have been customarily interpreted" because whenever a non-notable article is identified (which can take some time with more than 4 million articles to check) it gets deleted according to policies. There is nothing "uncertain" that I can see, "what constitutes a separate ancillary to the primary topic" is as bound by policies as any other article, WP:NOTPLOT, WP:PSTS or WP:GNG mention "Wikipedia articles" without any distinction. All articles are subjected to policies and guidelines, whether it is Discworld fictional elements or TV show episodes. And from what I see of this discussion, this article is likely to be notable and be kept, not because "it's Discworld !" but because significant coverage in secondary independent sources has been found. Other articles derivative of equally notable/popular series like Harry Potter or Star Wars have been deleted out of lack of such secondary content, again per policies and guidelines such as WP:NOTPLOT and WP:GNG because the criterion for admissibility is only the existence of enough secondary content, I don't see anything unclear here.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your persistent linking to a gamut of Wikipedia policies and obsessive, dogmatic iteration of abstruse acronyms is certainly impressive, but there is a cap to the amount of alphabet soup and cretinous croutons that I am able to comfortably consume and alas, my stomach has reached capacity. Kindly understand that I am merely stating my point of view and am not attempting to proselytize you to my way of thinking; your didactic dissension has been noted - and dismissed, so I request that you refrain from haranguing me further. Ankh.Morpork 22:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This belongs on a Pratchett wiki. Does it also belong here? That's a _massive_ question. Are articles of this depth, based on the primary use of the fictional source, appropriate for WP? That's a real question, and a biggie. Much too big for AfD. If the answer is no, then that's a lot of material needing to be destroyed. As it is though, AfDing odd articles in drips and drabs has become a popularity contest, not an objective application of policy. No one is going to go after an article like this, with exactly the same problem, if it's about X Men or Twilight. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:WAX. My personal opinion is that inappropriate fancruft should be removed regardless of national origin (even if, as in this case, I am a fan of the series in question). As to the general question you pose, it has been answered in the negative by way of WP:N and WP:WAF, both of which are community-accepted content guidelines.  Sandstein  14:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are in addition to the above three references, and are limited to Scholar results, in English, which do not appear to duplicate anything else above. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 00:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Dirty Harry book is a Wikipedia mirror. WP:CIRCULAR -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Folklore of Discworld" is written by Pratchett himself and thus not a third party source. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • and if what the third source says is "many of the books in the subseries featuring the Ankh Morpork city watch may be seen as parodies of detective stories, but at the same time they continue to debate the issue of institutionalised racism" thats all well and good, but hardly significant coverage upon which the article could be built. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT - what in the history would be worth saving? It appears to contain nothing but original research.-- The Red Pen of Doom 17:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... except that what you term original research is actually nothing more harmful than plot summary, some of it probably excessive, which can be cited to the primary sources themselves. Do you have any specific passages that you believe cannot be fixed without excision? Give me something to fix, and I'll cite or remove the material as an example that it's entirely doable. Jclemens (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...except that none of that "plot summary" crap is worthy of being saved for an encyclopedia entry. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I ask again: Pick a specific section that you want to see cleaned up, and I will prove it can be done. If you're not going to, then I respectfully submit that your lack of willingness to have cleanup demonstrated appropriately undermines the basis of your position. Jclemens (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can start with these sections
2 Fictional history (before the time the novels are set in)
3 History according to plot of novels
4 Ranks
5 Uniform and equipment
5.1 Watch badge
5.2 Communications
5.3 Oath
6 Members
6.1 Commander Sir Samuel Vimes
6.2 Captain Carrot Ironfoundersson
6.3 Captain Angua von Überwald
6.4 Sergeant Fred Colon
6.5 Corporal Nobby Nobbs
6.6 Sergeant Detritus
6.7 Sergeant Cheery Littlebottom
6.8 Constable Reginald Shoe
6.9 Lance-Constable Salacia "Sally" von Humpeding
6.10 Constable Dorfl
6.11 Constable Visit-the-Infidel/Ungodly-with-Explanatory-Pamphlets
6.12 Inspector A E Pessimal
6.13 Constable Igor
6.14 Constable Downspout
6.15 Corporal Buggy Swires
6.16 Minor Watchmen
6.16.1 Special-Constable Andy "Two Swords" Hancock
6.16.2 Sergeant Stronginthearm
6.16.3 Acting-Constable Cuddy
6.16.4 Constables Flint and Morraine
6.16.5 Lance-Constable Bluejohn
6.16.6 Corporal Ping
6.16.7 Andre
6.16.8 Constable Wee Mad Arthur
6.16.9 The Librarian
6.16.10 Constable Haddock
6.16.11 Lewton
6.17 Former Members
6.17.1 Findthee Swing
6.17.2 Mayonnaise Quirke and The Day Watch
7 Allies
7.1 71-Hour Ahmed
7.2 Willikins
7.3 John "Mossy" Lawn
Well, since you've expressed no particular ordering, I'll just clean up one of my choosing later this evening, then, and you will accept that as a successful demonstration that any of the rest can be cleaned up through regular editing, right? Jclemens (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, The Librarian has been done. Admittedly, he's one of the easier characters to expound upon, since he's appeared in almost every Discworld book, but the same level of sourcing could probably be met for most of the major characters, and the minor characters cleaned up appropriately. 04:57, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I dont believe that you have made a case for this article. one of the non primary sources you used doesnt deal with with subject of the article The AM Guards at all it just mentions one of the characters in a different context. the other source mentions the subject of the article in passing, one line about the Guards, but the one time the Librarian is mentioned in the source, it is not in connection with the Guards. The whole content of the section is built on primary source materials. Articles need to be based upon content from non primary sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You named Librarian. I improved Librarian. It sources the three plot point assertions to the primary sources, and cites two non-trivial secondary sources covering the Librarian, and I did that without even referencing his own article. I can do the same thing to any other section--find multiple primary sources to source the plot points, trim out excessive plot, and find secondary sourcing to substantiate any section as needed. As far as the overall prevalence of secondary sources, see e.g. my discussion with Uzma Gamal, below, where I've cited The Washington Post in addition to the various other book chapters, articles, etc. referenced elsewhere in this AfD. The case is clearly made that regular editing is sufficient to bring this article up to Wikipedia standards, and I'd welcome your help in actually doing so rather than simply naysaying that what I did briefly last night cannot possibly be sufficient and/or cannot possibly be extended to the rest of the article. Jclemens (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You asseement of "non-trivial" is apparently different than the Notability definition of "non-trivial" (Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1240962,00.html. "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice." ) is plainly trivial.) - Your two examples are BOTH of the "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice." variety.-- The Red Pen of Doom 16:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Jclemens. We're mainly concerned with notability for now. Article clean-up is outside of the scope of this discussion, and can be addressed once this AfD is closed. —Torchiest talkedits 17:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Georgetown University Student Association[edit]

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

Non-notable organization at Georgetown. Nearly all of the reliable sources are to the student newspaper The Hoya, which cannot be used as a reliable source as it is not separated enough from the subject (also note the original author). The AFD from 2008 closed as no consensus, but it is clear now that Wikipedia shouldn't be hosting all of these individual student organization articles. There are only four sources used on this article that are not from Georgetown. THe first one doesn't mention the organization, the second is dead, the third doesn't appear to be a reliable source, and the fourth is a passing mention.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I was. Fail. Should have seen that... Thanks for picking that up! Stalwart111 (talk) 10:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 11:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the Faxed Atmosphere[edit]

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

Album from a band without an article. I think the only reliable source is the Stylus Magazine one. Orphan. Secretlondon (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the avoidance of doubt, I confirm that I have no personal or professional connections with any of persons linked to the subject(s) of this article. I've not even listened to any of the music and therefore have no personal opinion regarding its style either! -- Trevj (talk) 12:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG applies both to artists and albums: "Wikipedia should not have a separate article on a person, band, or musical work that does not meet the criteria of either this guideline or the general notability guideline" (WP:NMUSIC) - hence the GNG is sufficient for band and work. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 11:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Burzum. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Burzum / Aske[edit]

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

searched and cannot be established as having received sufficient coverage from reliable sources Lachlan Foley (talk) 11:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Mythic Tarot[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the general notability guideline. This tarot reading approach is trivially mentioned in news sources here. There are many books on the subject, but many of them are written by the creator, Juliet Sharman-Burke and Liz Green, and cannot be considered independent. Other books do not provide significant coverage of the subject. Furthermore, the article suffers from a promotional tone. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 00:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Without the sources we could make a stub, but it'd be OR. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for including my edit of the article "The Mythic Tarot". I took care to include all the info and most of the language from the existing article; which is therein under my sub-heading "The Mythic Tarot and Jung".
However as presently posted, the previous iteration remains entire, with my edit of the same article following it on the same page. This is redundant and unwieldly.
I did my major re-write in response to Wikipedia's red flags requesting editting, which called the original article too promotional; as it certainly was/is; also repetitive, preachy, not well written. Alas, when I tried to post my edit, it seemed to be blocked; (by the original authors?) All this I've endeavored to communicate to editors, via talk "why this page should not be deleted."
Excuse if anything herein duplicates any previous message from me. I'm just learning my way around this process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atalanta the Huntress (talk • contribs) 10:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 11:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, all.

Thanks, Jethro for copying my comment here. However, to clarity I am not the creator of this page, nor associated in any way with the creator of the Mythic Tarot deck or book. I am only the author of the complete re-write of the article which I posted first week of September, strictly in response to Wikipedia's red flags requesting an edit.

Here are some links which I've added to my edit as references re:

a) Tarot widely used by licensed psychotherapists; and

b) Mythic Tarot deck favored by such therapists / counsellors (i.e. not only by fortune tellers)

http://www.tarotschool.com/ElementalArray.html

http://www.tarottherapy.co.uk/cittprosp.htm

http://transpersonalpodcast.org/2010/09/06/hillary-anderson--using-the-tarot-in-therapy.aspx

http://columbia.academia.edu/InnaSemetsky/Papers/426808/Integrating_Tarot_Readings_Into_Counselling_and_Psychotherapy

http://gestaltarttherapy.com/1/2011_tarot_as_a_projection_technique_in_therapy_26th_november_2011_587862.html

http://donnafisherjackson.com/services/tarot.html

Here's a link to the Tarotpedia's entry on the Mythic Tarot, re: the deck's considered notability by independent authorities on the Tarot.

http://www.tarotpedia.com/wiki/Mythic_Tarot

Also note that there is a Wikipedia entry for Liz Greene, one of the creators of the Mythic Tarot. Does that indicate some notability precedent for her works?

Pardon any redundancy. As I'm new to this process, I've copied this info to a couple of Talk pages on this subject. Hope this is helpful. Thanks for your attention to this issue. --Atalanta the Huntress (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 04:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Burzum (album)[edit]

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

searched and can't be established as Wikipedia-notable Lachlan Foley (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The solution might be to translate German WP's Good Article to here, or at least bring over some of the plentiful references. If (when) the article here survives this AfD process, I can contribute to the effort. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Fight OUT Loud. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Niedwiecki[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN weirdly this guys husband is a redirect to this article? Any ideas why this would be? Facts, not fiction (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I was the original creator of this article. At the time I created it, he was slated to take office as mayor — and WP:POLITICIAN does specify that "first LGBT mayor of a town or city" is a legitimate claim of notability — but then later went on to resign his city council seat before actually acceding to the mayoralty. So, long story short, there was a legitimate reason to create this at the time, but due to a subsequent change of circumstances there's no longer a particularly strong reason to justify keeping it now — and thus I'll agree with the delete. Also, the reason his husband is a redirect is that he also had a separate article at one time, but it didn't make a particularly strong claim of notability (as opposed to mere existence) and nearly all of its references discussed him specifically in the context of being Niedwiecki's partner. So yes, that should also be deleted. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 4 September 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) 08:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 04:03, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jung Keun-Hee[edit]

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

Not a notable player. This player only has 4 appearences. the article should be incubated until the player is established in the league. tausif(talk) 07:51, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Speedy Delete as nonsensical hoax. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth-harmonic_generation[edit]

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

No sources given for this 'remarkable' discovery, that reads a bit dubious to me. Robert Keiden (talk) 05:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as unambiguous advertising. CtP (t • c) 23:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

R. U. Troutman & Sons, Inc.[edit]

R. U. Troutman & Sons, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. No GNews/GBook hits. GHits consist of promo/directory listings for company. No reliable and verifiable sources listed or found. Refs provided are either from the company (not independent) or local. GregJackP Boomer! 04:53, 10 September 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 template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
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. Some of the sources may be quite brief in their coverage, but there seems to be a consensus that there is enough material out there to satisfy WP:GNG. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 08:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Shuster Award[edit]

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

I'm nominating this article for deletion after discovering it in relation to another AfD. There is no in-depth coverage of this award in independent and reliable sources. I see plenty of trivial mentions in relation to various people and some press releases, but not that much coverage from sources that are both independent and reliable. This might be redirectable to the comic book artist Joe Shuster, but in the case that there are sources I've missed, I'm bringing it to AfD. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Basically put, this is the extension of another debate on the other AfD and because there is serious doubt to the notability of the Shuster Award due to its lack of in-depth coverage (most of the coverage is just routine notification of someone getting nominated or a list of winners now and again). Being associated with a notable person does not extend notability to the awards. While this isn't a completely unheard of award, I have doubts as to whether it truly merits an article versus a section on the artist's article. To avoid complications and to be fair, I'm bringing it here.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concern is that these seem to be semi-routine notifications of who won, almost along the line of a press release that the awards heads would release to various newspapers. There's really no coverage about the awards. The fourth link is one of the very few I've seen that actually talk about the awards rather than just say "Comic book artist A won this".Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you know how long the articles were? Did the second article just give a listing of the recipients or did they actually go into any sort of detail? If all the article contained was a list of recipients and a 1 paragraph blurb, then I'm not entirely certain that it's really all that in-depth. I swear I'm not trying to be difficult, but I've had a lot of trouble finding anything that goes beyond a press release or a listing of names on an article and not actually talking about the awards in depth.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The first two sources link to articles, one of which may or may not be just a list of winners. The first one I'm willing to accept could be in-depth even though we don't really have any way of knowing how in-depth the articles were.
  2. [27] This is just a listing of award winners. It doesn't go into any depth at all about the awards, its history, or anything else that is pertinent to that year or previous years. It's just a list.
  3. [28] This article gives a little more, but again it's ultimately just a list of winners with little other detail. Good for backing up that someone won an award that year, but not necessarily really that in-depth.
  4. [29] This is another list of winners. Again, not very in-depth.
Not every source has to give the entire history of the awards, but I've had a really, really hard time finding anything that goes beyond "this was just held and these people won stuff". There's little to no coverage of this award ceremony otherwise when it comes to reliable and independent sources. Sure there's blog talk and primary sources, but not really that much coverage overall. Now when it comes to sources such as the one Fanthrillers gave, that's just an insanely brief mention. It's mentioned just once, more as an aside "Jeff Lemire's book won him a Shuster, now let's talk about things other than that award". It's brief and ultimately trivial. Trivial mentions, no matter how many of them there are, do not pile up into a notable source. They're brief and trivial mentions. That's ultimately what makes me concerned about the overall notability of this. Do trivial mentions and a handful of lists of winners really show notability? I see news articles that are mostly lists as being predominantly trivial.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Comics Journal coverage is there and goes beyond "this was just held and these people won stuff". And the award commitee and the setting up will have been covered by The Comic Buyers Guide too, I just don't happen to have any of those. Also, I don't recall sources having to be "notable" before. I may be misremembering, but the idea was that we used "reliable sources"? The Journal coverage goes beyond triviality, it addresses, as WP:N puts it, "the subject directly in detail". It's even the main topic of the article, which is not required. I have been away from Wikipedia a while, granted, but a cursory glance at the GNG shows it hasn't changed much since its framing.[30] Hiding T 09:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main topic, sure, but I don't really think that routine lists really count as being in-depth about the subject. There's a world of difference between articles that merely repost lists from primary sources and articles that actually discuss the subject at hand. I view news sources that are almost entirely (or entirely) comprised of a list of names as a trivial source.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the same rationale as is given to the New York Times Bestseller lists being seen as a trivial source rather than a reliable one, as it's just a listing of books. The listings for the Shuster Award winners in the various news sources falls along the same lines, in my opinion.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how what you says rebuts my point that The Comics Journal coverage is there and goes beyond "this was just held and these people won stuff". And if I understand you correctly, the point you make, "New York Times Bestseller lists being seen as a trivial source" may well be perfectly correct when using them as a source in an article on a book. In an article on the lists themselves they become a primary source. I think this discussion is becoming confused as to what sources we are describing, and why. You've stated above your reason for nominating this article is because of an afd elsewhere and an extension of the argument there. Which afd is it, and what is the argument there? If the argument is being made that winning a Joe Shuster award confers notability, that has no bearing on the notability of the awards itself, you would be discussing one award of many awarded. That would be akin to a book being listed in the New York Times Bestseller lists. The listing may not make the book notable, but we still have an article at The New York Times Best Seller list. Hiding T 10:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The argument was over the notability given by the award, then I noticed that there seems to be some issue over the extent of coverage of the Shuster Awards. Rather than just let it stay up and ignore that it had issues with sourcing and depth of coverage, I brought it to AfD. As far as the TCJ coverage goes, there's two issues: first off, even if both articles articles are in-depth, it's just one source covering the awards. Secondly, I'm saying that I'm not sure that the second article by TCJ (the one entitled "Shuster Nominees Announced") seems to be just a list of names. Sources that are comprised of lists don't always show notability and it's rare that lists are in-depth enough to show notability. Now when it comes to the NYTBSL, there's a lot of coverage of the actual list itself and such. I just don't see anything out there about this awards ceremony other than routine listings of who won what. I'm expressing concern that people are stating that someone posting a list of winners on a news website shows notability for the awards ceremony. It's not in-depth and it's just a routine list. It's not in-depth coverage. It's just a list. If that's really all it takes to show notability then ultimately any awards ceremony ever has notability under that standard because it's not that overly hard to get a listing of winners posted. It's not insanely easy but neither is it insanely hard, with the powers that be mostly just having to send off a press release to the papers. News articles that are almost or entirely comprised of routine listings of winners (as opposed to actual coverage of the award ceremony or in-depth coverage of the winners) are pretty much only trivial sources, not ones that show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:39, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two separate issues of The Journal are two separate sources, else-wise every edition of the Times from 1890 up would be viewed one source. Since I've already stated that The Journal coverage is more in depth than a simple list of winners I'm not sure what else is left to say. I don't really see a need to enter into a debate about other awards, we aren't debating the deletion of those, they should stand or fall on their own merits. I've provided quite a few sources now, and pointed out that others will exist but I do not have access to them. I can do no more than that. I've never once said that "someone posting a list of winners on a news website shows notability for the awards ceremony". There's enough material in the sources listed to source and keep an article per content policies. Hiding T 12:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh bother, one last thing! :) You said up above, "The first one I'm willing to accept could be in-depth even though we don't really have any way of knowing how in-depth the articles were." Can you clarify what you mean by that? Hiding T 12:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep: unquestionable disruption. Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kik Tracee[edit]

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

    Not Notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikijustice2013 (talk • contribs)

    Postdlf, thank you very much. I just checked the nominator's two accounts and this was the only Afd they started. --76.189.97.91 (talk) 03:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Whether or not a redirect is warranted should be the subject of further discussion. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 07:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Femme flagging[edit]

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

    Wikipedia is not for things made up one day on Tumblr. Mangoe (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I would question doing that redirect. The big problem here is notability: evidence suggests that this is not something that ejhoys the sort of widespread awareness that hanky codes do. Mangoe (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • And they don't have to, that's why it's not being allowed to stand alone as an article. A section, several sentences, may be able to sum up. Insomesia (talk) 04:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • In looking for sources I did find Inspired by the frenzy around femme flagging. With more time i think a few sentences in the original article are warranted. And I see no reason a merge/redirect not to be a solution to this article until a few magazine articles emerge. Insomesia (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser TSU 04:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-gay hate groups[edit]

    List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-gay hate groups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This is a clear fork of List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups - possibly a POV fork. StAnselm (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. A potential merge can be discussed on article talkpage, but with the sources and arguments provided, this is a pretty uncontentious Keep. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Salutogenesis[edit]

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

    Tagged as essay-like and lacking proper sourcing since 2009, not rectified. This is basically 50% dictionary definition and 50% POV fork. "Salutogenesis" is a bullshit term akin to "wellness" used by SCAMmers because it sounds sciencey. It has no actual objective meaning. Guy (Help!) 00:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep: Needs filling out, but as there are about 3,500 Google scholar references available (and another 850 for salutogenetic), this should not be a problem. Mainstream journals such as Social Science & Medicine, Journal of Epidemiology and community, South African Journal of Psychology, British Journal of Health Psychology, and Journal of Advanced Nursing have all had articles using the term. Nature magazine has published six articles that reference the term: (5), (6th) . This is clearly now a quite well established medical concept. hgilbert (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a source for that? Per WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV, adequate sourcing is required to present the topic neutrally; i.e put it in place with respect to the mainstream. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose merge (and keep article, as I stated above). A Google search of salutogenesis without Antonovsky gives more than 60 000 results. The concept is used widely without mentioning Antonovsky. Lova Falk talk 14:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a useful metric in a deletion discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    More