< 4 September	6 September >

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 delete. I'm closing this early, but given the sensitive nature of the situation and the very strong consensus here I think this is a justifiable use of WP:IAR Mark Arsten (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Carole Waugh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article went through AFD a few weeks ago amid concerns of its notability, but was kept after a debate in which several people (myself included) successfully argued for its retention, and a significant number of news articles were collected to show ongoing coverage. However, since then new information has come to light which suggests a second debate is necessary. Most significantly, at least two users, Jayen466 and SlimVirgin have been contacted by someone with a connection to the subject who has indicated the article contains inaccuracies. I believe that information has now been removed, and although as far as I am aware, nobody has requested the removal of the article itself, concerns have been raised by SlimVirgin and Alison as to its appropriateness. I won't lose any sleep if this debate closes as delete, though I'd hate to be the cause of a shitstorm, so I'm presenting this again for the opinion of the wider Wikipedia community. Over to you. Paul MacDermott (talk) 00:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete I can see nothing that makes this event notable in any encylopedic sense. The woman went missing; her body was found; people have been arrested for fraud in connection with the murder. Unhappily, dozens of people disappear and are murdered around the world on a daily basis. Let her rest in peace. Bielle (talk) 01:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Bielle put it far better than I could. Per WP:NEWSPAPER and per general notability, this article simply shouldn't be here - Alison ^❤ 01:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Barring further developments that bring in encyclopedic notability, WP:NOTNEWS appears to apply here. A sadly routine murder case with no wider implications and little to suggest there will be anything significant to write about the case.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nomination and comments at previous AFD. I won't repeat those points all over again. N-HH talk/edits 08:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A point I'd like to make (which I touched on at the last AFD, and in one or two previous debates) is that I believe we should consider having some clearer guidelines on articles of this type, if only to have something that defines the difference between high-profile and notable, and when the former becomes the latter. It's a fact that any UK murder case that received more than a couple of days worth of blanket news coverage seems to turn up on Wikipedia pretty quickly, and many of them end up in the AFD pile soon afterwards. I guess it depends on how and when one decides the event has passed a relatively short news cycle. There had been almost three weeks of coverage by the time I created this, which I would argue passes the norm. But in any case, I'd like to open a debate on this topic and whether there's a solution that can help to resolve the endless arguments these articles generate. Give me a day or so to think about this, and I'll open a debate in the appropriate place. I hope you will add your thoughts. Cheers. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While this tragic story may be newsworthy, it is not suitably encyclopedia-worthy content. Peacock (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Paul, it was very decent of you to bring the article back to AfD after people expressed concern about it.
For a "Death of X" article to be notable enough, there would normally be a public interest issue (public interest in the sense of public well-being), or such intense and protracted news coverage that it would be hard to ignore. The question is whether there is enduring notability – whether the death and its consequences will still be an issue for the public in several years' time. That doesn't seem to be the case here at the moment, so I would say the article fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did think of speedying it, but wasn't sure if that would be appropriate. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a clear case of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, per Bielle, Alison, Jimbo and Slim; and I take my hat off to Paul for taking the initiative. J N 466 00:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete WP:NOTNEWS. It's a news story, but where's the encyclopedic relevance?Andy Dingley (talk) 00:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am very uncomfortable with articles about matters that have yet to come to trial because the facts cannot be established. There are restrictions on what can be reported, witnesses have no business relating what they know, and of course those who know most about it, ie the perpetrators, will either have concealed the truth or in some cases deliberately spread misinformation. Even at trial, the rules of evidence may mean that the full picture does not emerge in open court. In any case of disappearance and murder there will be a lot of interest and speculation and the mere fact that secondary sources have covered it does not raise it above the routine. So whilst I am with Paul MacDermott in suggesting a debate about the issues I do think that the threshold for inclusion has to be high and it is not met here. --AJHingston (talk) 10:10, 7 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 speedily deleted per A7.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Lipscombe Traffic and Transportation Consultants[edit]

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

Advert and Notability Issues. ShaneMc2010 22:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no WP:RS to be found. ww2censor (talk) 04:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Non-notable and reads like a promotional piece. Welshboyau11 (talk) 09:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7 and borderline G11. The half of this article that is actually about the company doesn't make any claim to its notability, and the half that is about the company's founder is a listing of his activities before founding the company, which doesn't speak to the notability of the company itself. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:26, 6 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) 22:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Base 30[edit]

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

Repeating the rationale from my prod (removed without explanation by an anonymous editor): No references; tagged for notability for three years without improvement; no evidence that this has any significance either in human cultural history or in mathematics. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced, stubby article about a base that doesn't seem to be used much in the real world. The article should be deleted unless some notable uses of this base can be found. CodeTheorist (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep or else there's a whole load of other related articles to erase too. Why should we keep Base 27 but not Base 30? If anyone has a solid reason to, then delete the lot - otherwise keep the lot. Picking at them one by one is not a productive effort. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a reason I chose this one: Base 27 has a claim that it has been used in at least one historic culture. This one doesn't. And anyway, see WP:WAX — this is a standard "argument to avoid in deletion discussions". —David Eppstein (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:WAX /WP:OSE is also one of the least productive arguments for deletion.

A more useful question is this: Do we support articles on obscure or unused bases, with a discussion of their virtues, from a sense of arithmetic inclusionism? If we do that, then we keep the lot. If we don't, then 27 goes too. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is an important distinction between "obscure" and "unused" that separates this one from all the rest. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:N WP:RS. That said, if we start deleting every mathematical theory or system with no real-world use, the math category will get a bit lighter. Kerfuffler (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:I see no notability here. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep as it is probable that it will be completed later on. Eyreland (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Whether a numerical system is obscure or even unused is totally irrelevant. This article is unsourced, with seemingly no immediately available sources to show notability. A mathematician with knowledge of the literature may be able to redeem this article easily, but notability is not established at this time. -- BenTels (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:MILL. We could create articles on base 0-(infinity-1), but that's silly. The article doesn't really assert anything notable about this base. Gigs (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no references. Has anyone studied this?--Salix (talk): 06:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No hint of notability; one table of original research. linas (talk) 19:03, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TotalCon[edit]

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

Non-notable event. No independent references. Very small attendence by notable parties. Google shows only forum posts. PROD removed with a justification related to Iron GM, which doesn't appear to be notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references provided and a quick search brought up nothing of note - certainly nothing in news sources that could be considered "coverage" of any sort. On that basis I would suggest it wouldn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH as an enterprise or WP:EVENT as an event. For the record, I don't think this is a case of demolishing the house while it is being built as the original author has suggested in edit summaries - the burden is on the original author to provide references, this has not been done and I cannot see that there is any way it could be done given the lack of coverage. Stalwart111 (talk) 01:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on the WP:DEMOLISH comment: I'm an active new page patroller, but patrol 10 days into the log and almost always (including in this case) use a WP:PROD with creator notification to give the creator and/or interested parties a two-week window to build the solid foundations of an article. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. It's possible that there's coverage from the pre-Internet days, but I've found nothing that would be considered enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources that would show it passes notability standards. This just isn't notable, despite it having run for so long.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable and does not meet WP:EVENT. Welshboyau11 (talk) 09:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is non notable and no references are provided. It also does not meet WP:EVENT. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No considerable amoutnt of reliable sources found to showcase notability. — ΛΧΣ21™ 05:59, 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 as per positive consensus, the absence of calls for deletion outside of the nominator, and the confirmation of secondary sources in the article. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin scale[edit]

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

Non-notable as a scale or typology; all relevant text is already at Classification of transsexuals. Delete or redirect to there. — James Cantor (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — James Cantor (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Another interesting move from nom who has conflicts of interest when it comes to anything to deal with Blanchard and frankly transexual and transgender people. The intended target article was created by nom and they are the chief author there, I'm concerned that that article tries to legitimize the Blanchard view on transsexuality putting it on equal footing with other metrics that are accepted by mainstream academics and are not viewed as controversial. A quick Google Scholar search shows several sources which support this article; Google Books gives nearly 90 entries. For those less familiar "the relationship between gender identity (Benjamin Scale) and sexual orientation (Kinsey Scale) is probably a result of the researchers biases. At one time you couldn't transition if you weren't completely 'homosexual' because *obviously* a 'real' female is completely heterosexual. As transsexuals discovered this bias, they lied in order to get surgery. Fortunately today most gender clinics accept sexual orientation and gender identity are distinct." Blanchard et al hold what many consider to be controversial views and nom has a history or promoting Blanchard et al and their views (See this search from their former account). Insomesia (talk) 22:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per insomesia. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 00:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG with ample reliable secondary sources available to expand this article. Benjamin's scale is important in the history of the study of transsexuality. Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 14:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ample secondary source coverage. — Cirt (talk) 05:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gobonobo and Cirt - there are two reliable, secondary sources already in the article. Bearian (talk) 18:07, 7 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) 22:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arma Partners[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP: no significant coverage, sources provided mention the company only in passing or not at all. – Steel 22:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quite advery, plus it fails WP: CORP with no significant coverage by secondary reliable sources. Electric Catfish 00:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As ECF said looks a little too much like an advert (which can be fixed), however after a good search I can't find anything which indicates it meets the GNG or WP:CORP. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite being the original author of this article, I would support deletion as the firm probably does not meet WP:CORP yet and the ongoing self-promotion (by non-notable individual) makes matters worse Retardo (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It clearly fails WP:CORP. — ΛΧΣ21™ 06:00, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furkan Şeker[edit]

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

Restored PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Article was restored on the grounds that he has played in the Turkish Cup and for the Turkish U17 team. WP:NSPORT explicitly excludes youth footballers and his only appearance in the cup was against a lower division club. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In short, the PROD restorer made no attempt to assess whether the reasons for the prodding were accurate. (gazes upward) Ravenswing 07:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He played in the quarter-final of the 2010–11 Turkish Cup, and was an unused substitute in the final, so went home with a winners' medal, as Besiktas won that final. Might not be enough to confer notability, though I imagine it would if someone played for a Premier League club in the English FA Cup and was on the bench as that club won the FA Cup Final, but it seems a perfectly adequate rationale for removing the PROD. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Struway's research shows enough for a credible claim to notability; article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 07:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I disagree with Struway. If reliable independent sources haven't provided non-trivial significant coverage on him participating in the quarterfinals or as an unused substitute in the final (so as to pass WP:GNG), then I don't think he is notable enough to deserve an article – especially since he also fails WP:NFOOTY. – Kosm1 fent 15:00, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I hate to put words in another users mouth, but it seems to me Struway's comment was intended more as a response to Ravenswing comment about the restoration of the article. While being in an unused substitute in a cup final doesn't in and of itself confer notability, it is a good enough indicator that a person might be notable to merit the more detailed scrutiny of an afd. That being, my research has yielded nothing to show that Mr. Şeker is in fact notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was. I'm uncomfortable with this one. The player technically fails NFOOTY by never having played in a league listed as fully professional. I'd find it hard to believe that someone hadn't received enough coverage to pass GNG if they'd played a full season in the Turkish 2nd division, and played in under-age internationals, and appeared twice for a biggish capital-city FPL club in their run to the cup final, and was on the bench as they won that final. The tr:wiki article tr:Furkan Şeker is well-developed, but with little non-trivial sourcing. Unfortunately my Turkish is never likely to get past the "two beers please" level, and Google-translate struggles with converting the language into anything resembling English, so I can't do anything towards improving the article or even confirming the existence of enough RS to justify a presumption of notability. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - The help of a Turkish-speaking editor would be vital here. Just don't let them see Struway's comment about Besiktas, how can you refer to the club as just "biggish"...?! :P – Kosm1 fent 17:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Playing for a team from a fully pro league against an amateur team in a cup-match does not confer notability, even if his team later won the same cup. Though, I see Struway's points, but I don't think it's enough for an article yet. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify the status of his cup opponents (not in any way arguing against your delete opinion): He played in the group stage against 3rd-tier club Konya Şekerspor, and in the QF against Gaziantep B.B., who that season fell one point short of automatic promotion to the Süper Lig and then lost 1–0 in the playoff final. The Turkish 3rd and particularly 2nd tiers aren't proven "fully pro" per WP:FPL, but that doesn't make their teams amateur. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not currently meet GNG - the references are generally just match line-ups and stats sites. Picking up on Struway's point though, if in-depth Turkish language sources can be found that may well suggest it should be kept. Eldumpo (talk) 21:27, 9 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. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A.H.M.A.D.[edit]

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

May fail WP:GNG for musicians. Winning a contest for Guitar Center doesn't make one notable, I don't think. SarahStierch (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are either WP:ROUTINE or contain trivial references. I agree with nom that Guitar Center is not a 'major music award' as outlined by WP:NMUSIC. --TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 07:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 30 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in addition to the above comments, I'll note that the concert review by Babble and Beat is actually for a prior band which the founder was a member of and not for the current band which is rather misleading. -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 6 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. If notability is later established I will happily restore the article on request. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fellowship of Reason[edit]

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

This article about a small organization in the Atlanta area gives no indication of notability, and searching did not locate any significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. The sources in the article are all related to the organization itself (its website and a related book), except for one external link to a high-school newspaper. Prod tag was removed by an editor who unfortunately did not add anything to support notability. RL0919 (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on AfD message: The Fellowship of Reason is, as far as we know, the only existing reason-based moral community in existence. We have been in continuous operation in Atlanta, Georgia, for almost 14 years (since November 1, 1998). There are other "secural" moral communities in existence, but none explicitly claim to be "reason-based." Most secular moral communities, like the Humanists, are simply "Christians without God." There is, as far as we know, no moral community which is explicitly based upon Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. We are notable on this ground alone. Furthermore, we are actually in the process of elaborating our philosophy by drawing from Joe Sachs new translation of the Nicomachean Ethics by exploring the relationship between the good and the beautiful. I have removed objectionable references to another philosophy as a possible source for our philosophy. Our philosophy is called Eudaimonism. End of Comment on AfD message. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlcowen (talk • contribs) 17:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Hi Mlcowen. You may be new to this aspect of Wikipedia. You need to understand that notability is a Wikipedia term of art — it does not necessarily mean the same thing here as it does in ordinary English. See RL0919's link to WP:N for more details, but the summary is that a topic, to be "notable" in the specific sense important here, needs to have been covered by "multiple independent reliable secondary sources", where again you need to understand the Wikipedia meanings of reliable source and secondary source. Sorry if it's all a bit lawyer-like, but that's the culture that has evolved, for better or for worse. That doesn't mean your group is not notable, just that you need to understand what it means before you can debate it effectively. --Trovatore (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wouldn't mind seeing this article remain intact, and I suspect at some point in the future authoritative published sources by persons not connected with the organization will be available to cite. (Even if the authors _are_ connected with the organization, they might pass muster.) If the article gets deleted and such sources become available, I'll un-delete it and add those. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:53, 27 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Perhaps "notability" is a less than ideal term, but it is the one in use. If it makes understanding easier, an alternative way to look at this is that the organisation does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Ethical movement. It is neither notable, nor unique, despite the article's unverified claims. Bearian (talk) 20:40, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you feel is mergeable? -- Whpq (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Basic information, and an external link or citations perhaps. Bearian (talk) 17:17, 7 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, v/r - T P 21:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet the GNG. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a valid reason proffered to keep, to date. That this non-notable outfit fails the GNG is not in question. Ravenswing 07:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't keep track of Wikipedia legalities: If this is deleted, and authoritative secondary sources are later published that would qualify it is "notable" after their publication, would one normally just undelete it, thereby restoring the edit history (and of course then further edit it to cite those sources)? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct: deletion is not a permanent thing; if notability is later established, any admin can undelete the page, and in fact, if you want the text of a deleted page, there are admins who will happily get it for you. --Slashme (talk) 10:40, 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 delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Volume Seventeen[edit]

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

This article was nominated for deletion in a mass deletion discussion about six years ago, but the discussion was muddled with the many varying articles being discussed and there was no consensus. A search for reliable, secondary sources for this specific article reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This album fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for albums. Neelix (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 21 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 06:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So it looks like there was this "magazine" (Volume (magazine)) where each "issue" took the form of a CD with tracks on it. And somebody turned nearly each of the issues (25 of 27) into it's own article and the other two into red links for future articles. Each of the 25 issue articles consists of only a track listing, and with zero references. IMO all 25 need to get deleted, ~~(technically merged, with zero material to be brought over)~~ the parent article should probably stay. Deleting this one of the "25" is a good place to start. North8000 (talk) 11:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 10:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Ok, take all of the various and sundry Volumes, discs, etc and stick them all on ONE list. There is no need to take the volumes and list each individually. It's a series of items in volume form to be taken as a whole, so it should be listed it as such. As a whole they may better fit the WP:GNG for a series of contributions, if at all. Яεñ99 (talk) 12:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea; the list already exists at Volume (magazine). North8000 (talk)

The trouble with that is, that would require taking all the various "Volume (Number)" articles and keeping them as redirects to that...how many "volume seventeen"s of things are out there? Maybe not billions and billions, but surely over nine thousand. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you are intending to say. North8000 (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm trying to say is that "Volume Seventeen" doesn't work as a redirect - which would be required after a merge, lest the merged content become WP:COPYVIO - as it's ridiculously ambiguous. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Based on that I withdraw my support for the "merge" idea and instead stick with "Delete". North8000 (talk) 10:36, 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, v/r - T P 21:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Regardless of the proprietors' difficulty with the English language - the word "magazine" does not, as commonly understood, pertain to a series of compilation CDs, however thick the liner notes booklets may be - no one seemed to have noticed. While search terms are dicey, given the current existence of a quarterly architectural magazine by that name, an archival search on Google News UK turns up ZERO hits for "Volume Magazine" [1] leading me to wonder if anyone noticed. Even if notability could be established for the series, I can't imagine that each individual CD would in its own right meet the GNG. Ravenswing 07:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to throw the thought on the table that this AFD is sort of a "test case/template" for the other 24 articles on individual issues. If the finding here were to be "delete" I intend to nominate the other 24 articles on individual issues and cite this AFD. Does somebody know of a good process to do this to consolidate the discussions? North8000 (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Just do exactly that: make a bundled nomination and cite this one. Ravenswing 18:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I plan to do that if this one is deleted. North8000 (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ravenswing. There's no way this individual item meets the notability criteria to keep its own article, whether you want to consider it as a magazine issue or as an album. And as pointed out by Ravenswing, there's no real indication or sources to show that even the parent magazine has any notability of its own. A straight out delete rather than any sort of merge would be preferable. Rorshacma (talk) 16:39, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Mosier[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject is not wiki notable. Biggest claim for winning CINE award has been replaced without reference. The rest of the article confirms the subject is only a cartoonist, not a notable one. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC) - malformed AfD fixed; see [2] for original nomination. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find independent significant coverage about him. The Tucson Weekly interview is not independent as he is on staff there. There's also a mention here but that is insignificant, and also not independent. -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The only real claim of notability stated in the article (the award) has no sources to confirm the statement about it. The other sources are either extremely trivial, or are not independent. Like the nominator said, there's some brief mentions in sources that show that he actually exists as a cartoonist, but nothing to show that he's a notable cartoonist. Rorshacma (talk) 16:46, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Kuca[edit]

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

per WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME individual known only for involvement in one event, in which he was convicted of a misdemeanor. see [3] -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, irrelevant to the encyclopedia, WP, now, is full of irrelevant, peripheral topics in articles. MaNeMeBasat (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It just does not belong, then? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:17, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG. should stay. The delete opinion above seem to be a personal opinion without fundation in any guideline.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
note to closing admin the generic vote Above is a spree of 7 keep !votes in 10 minutes by this editor. LibStar (talk) 11:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- exactly how is WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME not a policy/guideline based position? -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - and do you have any sources to show that the meeting of the GNG that you state extends beyond the coverage of the one event? -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My search revealed no sources of notability not connected with this specific crime and I conclude that this is a case of WP:BLP1E. I'd suggest a merge but there is a line in WP:Whitewater controversy that seems sufficient, although a redirect might be appropriate. Ubelowme _U ^Me 22:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per BLP1E. A Google News archival search for Kuca turns up only five hits in the last ten years, all of them from an Arkansas business publication listing the sales of this or that property owned by a holding company of which he is president. This is a textbook case of BLP1E's requirement of enduring notability, and I suggest that BabbaQ take the time to look at the links cited before claiming that Wikipedia guidelines "seem to be a personal opinion without fundation [sic]", a startling remark from someone so active at AfD. Ravenswing 08:05, 6 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) 15:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luxion[edit]

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

This article fails WP: CORP with no assertion of notability, plus no coverage in independent, 3rd party, reliable sources. I have performed WP: BEFORE and cannot find any reliable sources on it from a Google search. Electric Catfish 21:07, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This user requested to be confirmed at WP: PERM/C here in order to add information about the company he works for. I commented that he has a COI. This may be a promotion of the company he works for. Electric Catfish 21:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi, I am new to creating Wikipedia pages and am making sure to stay within the guidelines. I will be citing references as the company is notable in the 3d rendering and computer graphics industry. I have started updating already. Josh Mings (talk) 02:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I see no indication that this company is notable per WP:NCORP. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:31, 25 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:51, 29 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence of notability, nor independent sources, proffered. Article creator isn't merely a COI issue, but apparently an SPA, not having been heard from since commenting here a week and a half ago. Ravenswing 08:14, 6 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. There a good arguments from each side, but no definitive consensus either way. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Kalinski[edit]

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

Non-notable scientist. A mere 37 citations of his most-cited paper doesn't cut the mustard in physics. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think Matt might be also and perhaps be better known as Maciej.(Msrasnw (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

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

Comment: this edit introduced a swatch of URLs which all appear to be largely re-publishings of this press release. As a press release these are not independent of the subject. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable sources. Science Daily is not just a press release pass-through, they are a reliable source, articles printed there (presumably) have been edited internally (as it says at the end of the article) ie. someone from Science Daily has looked at and vetted the article. This gives it reliability and notability independent of the source. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With a GS h-index of 13 for "M Kalinski" fails WP:Prof#C1. Too early Xxanthippe (talk) 10:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Comment It appears that the name of this article is supposed to be "Maciej Kalinski", not "Matt Kalinski". For example , he is the author of the PhD thesis (here) in the "External links" section of the article. There might some biographies of "Maciej" at a University or technical institution. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment I am not saying this person is notable or not at the moment. However, I wish to point out that seven articles on this first page [4] are related to "Trojan Wave Packets":

Lagrange equilibrium points in celestial mechanics and nonspreading wave packets for strongly driven Rydberg electrons
Trojan wave packets: Mathieu theory and generation from circular states
Numerical observation of stable field-supported Rydberg wave packets
Nonspreading Rydberg wave packets supported by a linearly polarized electromagnetic field
Bialynicki-Birula, Kalinski, and Eberly reply
Quantum control of non-circular Trojan states in hydrogen
Non-circular Trojan-like wavepackets: quantum theory and application to quantum control

There might be more on the Google Scholar pages that follow. Also, please take a look at the H-index for "Maciej Kalinski" rather than M. Kalinski and see if it comes out different than the above. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you try it yourself you will find that it comes out smaller. He publishes as M Kalinski. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

OK thanks. Oh by the way it seems that User:Msrasnw has discovered that this person also goes by the name of Matt. See discussion on my tslk page here (if anyone is interested). ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 03:14, 24 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, Theo polisme 21:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep notable in science is measured by the importance of the discovery, for which the citations are only a very approximate measure. There is no sharp cutoff. I accept Science Daily coverage as an indication the public might well come here for information, and that is sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is now a Polish language wikipedia article for the subject, but it doesn't appear to contain reliable sources we can steal to confirm notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Polish version has been deleted for lack of notability [5] (Msrasnw (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - Not enought reliable source material from which to create a Wikipedia biographical article per WP:GNG. The only Matt Kalinski who might meets WP:GNG is Florida State University cross country runner Matt Kalinski. I looked for Kalinski and Trojan and also looked for Kalinski and wave packet and looked for maciej and kalinski. I only found this, which notes in a footnote #9, "M. Kalinski, J. H. Eberly, J. A. West, C. R. Stroud, Jr., Phys. Rev. A. 67, 032503 (2003)." -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:19, 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 18:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources." I don't give a good goddamn if the press release is published in the Wall Street Journal in 24-pt type, it's still a press release, and it's still debarred as a reliable source for the purposes of the GNG. Ravenswing 08:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Science Daily: "The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Rice University. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. -- why is Science Daily making original edits to the content? They are interjecting their own editorial control over the content. Is that a press release? Green Cardamom (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which publication doesn't exercise editorial control over its content, press release or no? Ravenswing 18:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ones that just merely re-print press releases word for word usually say at the top of the article "Press release from.." To reverse the question: what publication doesn't sometimes rely on press releases when writing their own original content? Green Cardamom (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you'll find that they generally don't say so; far more often than otherwise, we determine at AfD that a source is a press release by way of comparison with multiple sources, all using nearly-identical wording and phrasings, and using a particular promotional tone that's easy to spot. Ravenswing 19:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good method. Has it been done? Green Cardamom (talk) 19:06, 7 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) 21:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gdynia Port: Looking from Kamienna Góra[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Gdynia Port: Looking from Kamienna Góra

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

A painting, but poorly sourced, leaving serious doubts to its notability. Creator removed my prod without a comment. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A commissioned artwork is not inherently notable. The only coverage I've found is a list-style mention on the Gdynia website. That and the two references in the article relate directly to the commission event and fall short of demonstrating notability. AllyD (talk) 22:07, 29 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agreed with AllyD - a recent, commissioned artwork is rarely notable, and there's no evidence this one is notable. PK T(alk) 14:11, 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 speedily deleted. Speedily deleted due to copyright violation (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OPALS-NA[edit]

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

The topic may be notable, but this article here is a hopeless attempt. Nothing here but promotional buzzwords, attempts to ride the coattails of others' notability, and not-independently-verified claims of size of userbase; only edits to it are the hit&run creation by username matching product that has made no other edits on WP. If this were new, might have even gone CSD G11. DMacks (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Spammy article created by (and the only editor) by a single purpose account. Largely a copy and paste of press releases from this company, see http://www.opals-na.org/pdf/OPALS%20Newsletter%20November%202006.pdf and http://help.opalsinfo.net/?page_id=479 RadioFan (talk) 13:41, 6 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 redirect to United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_North_Carolina,_2012#District_11. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Meadows (North Carolina politician)[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria of WP:POLITICIAN. Should redirect to election article. Arbor8 (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Welshboyau11 (talk) 09:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Mark Meadows spoke at the 2012 Republican National Convention, being one of the few House Candidates to do so. (There may have seemed like several, but keep in mind, there are over 400 members of the House of Representatives.) If this doesn't constitute coverage, I don't know what does. Donatrip (talk) 09:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This article meets WP:POLITICIAN #2. Like Richard Hudson, Mark Meadows has received considerable local and national press. The congressional district in which he is running (NC-11), is one of 3 consistently stated in national press as a highly targeted seat--considered a likely win for Republicans, a change from 6 years of a Democrat Member. Source 1, Source 2 (see chart at bottom of page NC-11), Source 3 (Roll Call), Source 4. Mark Meadows was one of only 10 congressional candidates to speak at RNC.

--NCfan27601 (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Or else redirect to the election page, if there is one. Meadows does not meet WP:POLITICIAN in any way. He has not held office and criterion #2 covers in-depth coverage in multiple pieces over a period of time, not single-event coverage or passing mentions (see the footnote, currently number 7). -- BenTels (talk) 21:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in North Carolina, 2012#District 11 per WP:POLITICIAN. The subject does not YET meet the criteria for a stand alone article (including #2), but may soon. Location (talk) 23:31, 9 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 redirect to Sanjay Leela Bhansali. There is no sourced material which can possibly merged to a BLP as the article is about a film. One can still find the name of the film in the filmography section so redirect for now is appropriate. This can surely be made into a wonderful article when more info is available. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Leela[edit]

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

fails WP:NFF. Unsourced, although google searches show imdb as having it in "pre-production". noq (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge whatever is sourcable and then Redirect to Sanjay Leela Bhansali. Even when failing notability standards for a separate article, it might be contextually discussed and sourced within the director's article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Merge or Incubate – Fails complete WP:N for a standalone article. Re-create when the production of the film actually starts. I believe that is the norm for most film articles, but alas fan boys. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - fails WP:NFF for a standalone article for now. Recreate when the production of the film actually begins. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:15, 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 redirect to United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_North_Carolina,_2012#District_8. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hudson (North Carolina politician)[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria of WP:POLITICIAN. Should redirect to election article. Arbor8 (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Another article that does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Welshboyau11 (talk) 09:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This article meets WP:POLITICIAN #2. Perhaps the article just needs to be expanded. I can work on it some more. Richard Hudson has received significant NC press attention & national press. Richard Hudson press. Also, Hudson is running in NC District 7, one of 3 NC congressional districts receiving considerable national press for political turnover. Hudson was one of only ten candidates asked to speak at the RNC. National press on targeted NC congressional seats. Charlotte Observer states importance of NC-08 in national politics. NC-08 listed in chart at bottom of page as likely win for Hudson. --NCfan27601 (talk) 14:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to election page: Hudson does not meet WP:POLITICIAN for the same reason Mark Meadows doesn't: not an incumbent, coverage is either not in-depth or focused only on his appearance at the convention. -- BenTels (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in North Carolina, 2012#District 8 per WP:POLITICIAN. The subject does not meet the criteria for a stand alone article (including #2). Location (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If he wins then we can create it but currently it doesn't meet notability guidelines. Kumioko (talk) 17:12, 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) 18:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OWASP Mantra Security Framework[edit]

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

no assertion of notability, notability is not inherited, COI / promo Widefox (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this article a recreation of the same topic (although improved) of Mantra (browser) which was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mantra (browser) notability is not inherited . This article should use that original article name, rather than recreate. Also COI / multiple issues.Widefox (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Scant evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 30 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the page was recreated since OWASP acquired the Mantra project and lead to complete project re branding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.204.127.92 (talk) 02:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to establish notability. --Kvng (talk) 17:04, 8 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) 15:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Loveday[edit]

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

Is see no clear indication that this person satisfies WP:N. As far as I can tell, he is an averagely successful physicist. However, the fact that he is not even a full professor raises a red flag. (Together with some of the very un-encyclopedic remarks in the article regarding his beard.) T R 12:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've removed the clearly unencyclopedic sentence. I haven't had a chance to research claims & sourcing so at the moment I have no comment on the overall notability question.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Using JS Loveday in Google Scholar seems to indicate to me he is perhaps well enough cited (H-index 30 ish) to meet WP:Prof. (Msrasnw (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for figuring out what name to search for. (My earlier attempts were foiled by the existence of another John Loveday who is a member of the Sloan digital sky survey team (which has a lot of very highly cited publications). However, I am still worried that I can find no reliable secondary sources for any biographical data concerning this person. As a consequence, even if he meets WP:PROF there still may be nothing we can write about him satisfying WP:V. It may turn out that his research is notable, but he is not.T R 22:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof#C1 with a GS h-index of 32. Nominator is advised to consult WP:Prof and WP:Before before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
How about you actually read WP:PROF yourself. Pay particular attention to the first bullet point under "general notes".T R 06:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that his H-index is not that high for his field. (Most of his coauthors have H-indices that are much higher according to GS. Scores of 80+ occur within this group.) It seems you are the one that should actually do you research.T R 06:14, 31 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. H-index of 27 (WoS query: "Author=(Loveday J*) Refined by: Organizations-Enhanced=(UNIV EDINBURGH OR UNIV BRISTOL) AND Authors=(LOVEDAY JS) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI Lemmatization=On") is satisfactory, even though there are undoubtedly others with higher impact. It's OK to leave the art as a stub for now if there aren't passable biographical sources about him, but his work renders him notable. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 15:17, 5 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) 18:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Kayabaşı[edit]

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 10:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 30 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. – Kosm1 fent 15:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that it fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL with no pro-league appearances. --Artene50 (talk) 05:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because as stated above, it fails WP:NFOOTBALL. — ΛΧΣ21™ 06:03, 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hisham Alawi[edit]

(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 the Omani League is fully pro, an assertion not supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 09:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 09:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 30 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no indication of notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. – Kosm1 fent 09:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that it fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG. Mentoz86 (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As no indication of notability have been shown. — ΛΧΣ21™ 06:03, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Milo Greene (album)[edit]

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

Delete and merge into Milo Greene. The album has charted and this article has no citations or any further information to provide context. SarahStierch (talk) 08:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I expanded the article. Significant coverage exists in multiple reliable sources; album meets WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 17:17, 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) 14:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per WP:NRVE, because topic notability is based upon available sources, rather than whether or not they're present in articles. Passes WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. Source examples include: [6], [7], [8], [9]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This nomination is an example of why one should follow the steps of WP:BEFORE so an article doesn't get deleted when it merely needs more teamwork. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:36, 6 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 00:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Action (EP)[edit]

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

Delete and merge into Nu'est. The lack of context in this article, combined with no sourcing and no charting action makes it even more logical to merge it.. SarahStierch (talk) 08:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. EP charted at number four on the albums chart. Let me see if I can dig up any other information... — ξ ^xplicit 22:57, 30 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Explicit - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have added a few ref's which makes it notable per WP:GNG --Michaela den (talk) 10:30, 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) 18:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honey_Claws_(album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Honey Claws (album)

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

This appears to possibly have been recreated? I'm not sure. But, it has an old notability tag on it (despite being a new page) and this content is already in the Honey Claws article (another article that probably could be AfD'd). I would have speedied this if I could... SarahStierch (talk) 07:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No major label, no significant recording chart position, no significant sales charting, no awards, no gold/platinum status, no notable national airplay - does not meet WP:MUSIC in any significant fashion, thus is WP:NN Яεñ99 (talk) 07:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 30 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It does not meet WP:NALBUMS. It hasn't received coverage by the media, it hasn't charted nor sales are available. Nothing. — ΛΧΣ21™ 06:05, 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 Redirect to Michael Jackson. — ΛΧΣ21™ 06:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agent MJ[edit]

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

Not notable enough to call for a page of its own. Content already exists at Michael Jackson. Character was called Agent M and not MJ in Men in Black II Sesamevoila (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Michael Jackson. Characters appearing in 1 or 2 films are rarely notable, no matter who plays them, and this character doesn't seem to have the notability or material for a detailed article. I'm not exactly sure on the redirect target; you could redirect to Men in Black II or Michael Jackson videography if you prefer. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Michael Jackson - This brief article says nothing that can't easily be said in the main article. Does not require a stand-alone. -- WikHead (talk) 09:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. And Redirect to the Jackson article. Neither "Agent MJ" as portrayed by Michael Jackson in Miss Cast Away and the Island Girls nor "Agent M" as portrayed by Jackson in Men in Black II have enough individual notability for stand alone articles. BUT, these roles do have the verifiability to be mentioned in the Jacskon article and in the two film articles. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:53, 6 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. Not a snowball's chance, polluted or not. Wikipedia is not where you write your school essay. Also note that the speedy should not have been declined; speedy tags cannot be removed by the article creator. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pollution Check Bangladesh[edit]

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

Non-notable original research. PROD and Speedy both declined. GregJackP Boomer! 11:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Zero notability, zero indication of wp:notability., zero real references. This isn't even an article or a real topic. Looks like someone wrote up and idea of theirs for a class project and pasted some of the material in as a article. The "references" are just items by their school. North8000 (talk) 11:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no encyclopedic content. Hairhorn (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. Mangoe (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 6 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. Although many of the sources do not pass WP:RS or only have trivial coverage, there is some significant coverage in the Punch sources. In addition, the subject seems to pass WP:POLITICIAN #1, and there appears to be slightly more support for "keep" than "delete" among the !voters. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reno Omokri[edit]

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

No notability shown, all 4 refs mention Omokri in passing only. The GNews hits also only mention him in passing. GregJackP Boomer! 11:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to keep this article. I will grant that it is not well written, in that it lacks some basic information on Omokri. It has very little biographical info. Also, it would be nice to know more specifically what this person wrote and more references would be nice. However, given what Mr. Omokri has done, I think notability has been established. Bill Pollard (talk) 11:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How is it shown? What sources support that statement? GregJackP Boomer! 14:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the page and I have added more references to establish notability.

--Etauso (talk) 13:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability has been established to the point of overkill! Subject has a countrywide high office, has notoriety in the Nigerian media, is respected in the U.S. enough to warrant his opinions being sought by two major DC Think tanks and there are multiple sources where his views have been sought for publication in the Nigerian media. I Followed conversation in the other thread as suggested by one contributor here. It appears there is a personal investment on the part of the nominator of this article and he's trying to prove a point.naijacicero (talk) 06:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - unfortunately, all the refs added are not reliable sources. They are either self-published by Omokri or social media or both. None does anything to establish notablity. GregJackP Boomer! 14:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's no verifiable and reliable independent third party sources with significant coverage. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 18:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-No, that is not true. I referenced articles that featured (not in passing) Omokri as a notable political influencer from Thisday Newspaper which is one of the most reputable newspapers in Africa and The Punch which is Nigeria's largest selling paper as well as an interview with Think Africa Press, a British news media focusing on Africa. I also referenced articles criticizing Omokri by Penguin Award Winner and Professor of the Institute of African Studies, Carleton University, Pius Adesanmi. I would have referenced one of his many short films but Wikipedia forbids YouTube links, however, the short films are referenced on his Think Africa interview. None of the articles are published by Omokri, some are OpEd pieces which are quite different from self publishing and which reflect notability as papers don't publish OpEds carelessly. Plus, he has featured at the U.S. Institute of Peace and the Atlantic Council. One doesn't get 40k followers on twitter and almost 30k on Facebook if you are not known. The Gnews hits are focused on him rather than just mentioning him in passing and I urge someone else to please verify this. Moreover, he is the founder/pastor of a Christian Center that has an on ground presence and a facebook following of over 30k. In conclusion, believe I established notability by showing that the subject occupies a high office as a Presidential aide, influences political events with his writings and talks, affects culture by the short films he makes and his opinions are weighty enough to be requested by the U.S. Institute of Peace and the Atlantic Council.--Etauso (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the last refs added have the same problem. Trivial mention in ThisDay - both articles, I don't understand how you can claim it "featured" Omokri when one of the articles mention him exactly one time. ThinkAfrica is self-published and not reliable (and it doesn't matter if it is an OpEd, it is still WP:SPS). SaharaReporters is not a reliable source, publishing the work of registered users without apparent editorial oversight. The rest of the claims are nice, but not supported by sources. There is even the point that the company that he works for as a "VP (Africa)" doesn't even list him on their website. GregJackP Boomer! 00:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Again, untrue, the mentions in Thisday are not trivial (and I urge others to read it). They listed him as an expert on his subject. Also, his OpEd pieces were published on the back page of Thisday, a privilege granted to only people of prominence including the current British PM and Nigeria's President. I referenced a news report from the Punch newspapers which shows that he speaks for the Nigerian President. His views are reported as the President's views. The report also shows that he engages in research on behalf of the Nigerian President. I dont know where you got the information that saharareporters is not credible when the Institute of African Studies, Carleton University, lists Penguin Award Winner, Prof. Pius Adesanmi's articles on saharareporters on his profile. If Carleton University considers it credible why shouldn't we? And on the piece criticizing him for his name not being on Trippi's website, he provided a state of Maryland notarized document from Trippi in a piece he did as a rebuttal to the saharareporters story. But it's funny that you refuse to give saharareporters credit for reliable stories yet they are reliable enough to cite their criticism of his standing at Trippi. By the way, why do you keep saying Think Africa Press is self-published? What does that term, Self-Published, mean to you? They are not WP:SPS). They are a bona fide news media. They have an editorial board, an editor-in-chief, other writers and have interviewed prominent serving and ex-government officials all around Africa and other personalities including the President of Zambia and pop stars. They have international correspondents all around Africa; Uganda, Tanzania, Zimbabwe to mention a few. And they are domiciled in the UK, so again how do you mean self-published? --Etauso (talk) 07:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, there are no unsupported claims in the piece. Everything is either referenced or supported by external links. If you claim that there are unsupported claims, please specify which and which. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etauso (talk • contribs) 09:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - FYI, I don't have the time, nor the desire to debate this with you ad nauseum. I have provided my reasons and thoughts, and my arguments for the closing admin. To recap, the refs provided do not establish notability by using reliable, verifiable, and independent sources. Some of the articles used as references are written by the subject of the article. Most of the references mention the subject in passing, a trivial mention, and not the in-depth coverage required. GregJackP Boomer! 23:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep this article. With all due respects I've been always polite with you and will not be baited to go ad hominem. You nominated this article for closure, so you obviously have the time and you cannot expect your opinions not to be challenged with facts! I've supplied valid references including one that reports him as speaking for the president of Nigeria, I also referenced an article from the Punch Newspaper (Nigeria's biggest daily) which is completely centered on Omokri and again another on Thisday that lists him as an expert, OpEd pieces including a backpage piece on ThisDay a paper circulated in Africa, South Africa and the U.S., full length interview on a British Magazine that also interviewed Presidents and Pop Stars. I also referenced his appearance as a Panelist at the United States Institute of Peace and the Atlantic Council where he gave expert testimony on democracy, elections and the use of Social Media as a tool in both. I referenced criticism of his work by no less a personality than a Canadian Professor at the University of Carleton, who also happens to be a Penguin Award Winner. The British Magazine references some of his short films which were popular in Nigeria. He is the pastor of a church and the current Special Assistant to the Nigerian President on New Media and previously Vice President, Africa, of the U.S. Political Consultancy, Trippi and Associates, all of which I referenced. So, yes, I think I established notability beyond a shadow of a doubt. You on the other hand falsely alleged that a British Magazine was self published, I proved that it wasn't. You alleged that his GNews hits mentioned him in passing, the closing administrator only has to click on the link to discover that the allegation is false. You alleged that Thisday mentions him in passing, yet they described him as an "expert" authority on online campaigning and featured him on 2 OpEd pieces on their entire backpage. Finally, nowhere here have I used ad hominem attacks on you. I would not do that, but your opinions may not be passed off as facts!--Etauso (talk) 06:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I accuse you of "ad hominem attacks", or for that matter, attacks of any kind? GregJackP Boomer! 20:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, let's focus on the issue rather than our difference of opinion. To show that the subject is very topical, just today, Nigeria's biggest newspaper did an article which is totally centered on the subject. This same paper did another feature on him and the president of Nigeria 3 weeks ago. Do you still maintain that notability has not been established? [ -Etauso (talk)

Comment - After following this discussion a bit, I did some in-depth research to find more info about Mr. Omokri. I could find very little. If this article is to survive this deletion debate, more info has to be located. I did vote to keep this article, but I understand that more substantial coverage of the subject needs to be located. Bill Pollard (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you Bill. Your advise has been followed and I have made honest efforts to address GregJackP's observations. When this article was nominated for deletion there were 4 references on the subject, today there are 19. I included an interview by a British Magazine which referenced his short films with links as well as multiple headline stories from Nigeria's biggest dailies which either featured him as the main subject in depth or featured him speaking for the President of Nigeria. I also featured direct from source references about his expert opinions at the U.S. Institute of Peace and the Atlantic Council where he spoke along side Jendayi Frazer the former Asst. U.S. Secretary of State for Africa. I added the published paper he presented at the Atlantic Council. Finally, although I would have preferred to keep it out, I've added an article where the subject was parodied. [ -Etauso (talk)
Keep & Rewrite - The subject of the article has received significant coverage in reliable sources. These sources refer to him as "Special Adviser to the President on New Media".^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] In 2011, the Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan set up several new assistant offices and appointed 24 new advisors, including Reno Omokri.^[6] Major Nigerian Daily Newspapers, both in print and in their online versions, have mentioned and featured Omokri as the new special adviser to the Nigerian President. Furthermore, Omokri has received coverage in his association with Trippi & Associates^[7] and as the founder of the project "Build up Nigeria". Thusly, Omokri has fullfilled Point #1 of WP:POLITICIAN (holding a national/statewide/provincewide office), WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:BASIC. Even though the depth of coverage is not really substantial, yet the combination of these multiple independent sources have demonstrated notability (Point #1 of WP:BASIC).

The article however contains unsourced material, and several unreliable sources, which were included by a new editor. These unreliable sources cannot be used to establish notability in Wikipedia. The editor who created the article is advised to fully acquaint her/himself with Wikipedia's Basic Policies and Guidelines, especially the Content Guideline on reliable sources and WP:BURDEN. Websites like wazobiareport.com, nigeriavillagesquare.com, thinkafricapress.com etc. are considered unreliable in Wikipedia because they do not have an editorial board, thusly there is no editorial oversight. The article should therefore be rewritten and all unsourced material in it should be deleted. Amsaim (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^ Egbejule, Eromo (8 January 2012). "Seven days and seven nights". Daily Times. Lagos, Nigeria. Retrieved 8 September 2012.
^ Ntia, Usukuma (28 July 2012). "Image Making: Between Media Advisers And PR Consultants For Public Sector". The Guardian. Lagos, Nigeria. Retrieved 8 September 2012.
^ El-Rufai, Nasir Ahmad (15 May 2012). "Between terrorism and corruption (2)". Nigerian Compass. Ogun State, Nigeria. Retrieved 8 September 2012.
^ Kawu, Is'haq Modibbo (31 May 2012). "Obasanjo vs National Assembly: Ali Baba and the 40 thieves". Vanguard. Lagos, Nigeria. Retrieved 8 September 2012.
^ Lere, Ismaila (6 May 2012). "Few highs, many lows as GEJ marks two years in office". Sunday Trust. Abuja, Nigeria. Retrieved 8 September 2012.
^ "Unnecessary Appointments Made By President Goodluck Jonathan". Osun Defender. Osun State, Nigeria. 17 January 2012. Retrieved 8 September 2012.
^ Imam, Imam (3 Jul 2010). "Response to Facebook Page Thrills Jonathan". This Day. Lagos, Nigeria. Retrieved 8 September 2012.

Rewritten - The article has been rewritten per Amsaim and Bill Pollard's advise. I also took into cognizance the observations raised by GregJackP. [ -Etauso (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article still has problems.

FN1 is trivial mention, and information about his attempted censorship of government critics was omitted from the article.

FN2 is trivial mention.

FN3 is trivial mention, and information about his comment that northerner's deaths were easing the burden on the country were omitted from the article.

FN4 is trivial mention.

FN5 is trivial mention.

FN6 is trivial mention.

FN8 is trivial mention.

FN9 is not independent as it is an OpEd piece written by the subject of the article.

FN10 is not independent as it is an OpEd piece written by the subject of the article.

FN11 is not independent as it is an OpEd piece written by the subject of the article.

FN12 is not independent as it is an OpEd piece written by the subject of the article.

FN13 is not independent as it is an OpEd piece written by the subject of the article.

FN14 is trivial mention, as a panelist in a piece announcing a public workshop.

FN15 is trivial mention.

FN17 is trivial mention.

With the lack of decent sources that have in-depth coverage, and the statement that the article has been rewritten to address my concerns, it is necessary to point out that: 1) the subject still has not demonstrated notability; 2) the sources are not adequate; and 3) the article is biased towards a single POV, not including any negative information on the subject. GregJackP Boomer! 02:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Jonathan’s aide turns preacher on Facebook" and "Jonathan seeks feedback from Nigerians on power supply" are not trivial mentions of the subject. The OpEd pieces were used to reference the fact that he is a prolific writer. How else does one prove that the subject is a prolific writer other than by referencing OpEds he has written for major national and International Newspapers? Also, to establish neutrality, these three "Between terrorism and corruption (2)", "Obasanjo vs National Assembly: Ali Baba and the 40 thieves" and "Seven days and seven nights" are heavily critical of the subject while FN6 calls the appointment of the subject as an Advisor unnecessary. --Etauso (talk) 08:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that the two first links posted directly above are non-trivial independent coverage. Within the Nigerian context, his role as social media spokesperson seems to possess an out-sized importance, attracting controversy as well as coverage. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Again GregJackP is not being accurate and I am getting concerned especially after investigations on the Internet turns up a similar pattern of behavior for him in other cases. The subject was never quoted to have said what you attribute to FN3. What that critical article alleged was that he once tweeted that some persons were ""parasites" (again, given GregJackP's penchant for making unsubstantiated claims I urge others to read the said article). Also you have not given a proper account of FN1. In the article he had asked a foreign national not to interfere in Nigeria's politics. And if you truly have concerns about these articles nothing stops you from adding those details to the article if you concerns were truly altruistic. That would have been the appropriate thing to do rather than nominate the article for deletion and for violation of NPOV. Please appreciate that the subject of the article is a senior government official in Nigeria and when you misrepresent the truth as you have done here you could trigger consequences that have more impact than your winning an argument. Please try to be factual and avoid hasty claims. --Etauso (talk)

Comment. May I just add that in addition to nominating this article for deletion, GregJackP has also raised another dispute about the neutrality of this article, stating that it violates NPOV requirements for neutrality. This is in spite of the fact that I and others have referenced at least 4 articles critical of the subject and stating that others disagree with his methods without being critical of those others or showing support for the subject. He also filed another deletion dispute to an article for G57 referenced on this current article. I hope these are good faith acts by GregJackP and not an attempt to win an argument irrespective of the facts.--Etauso (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The NPOV tag is based on the info in FN1 and FN3 above (at the time of the comment, the FN # may be different now). The other deletion nom is based on the evidence that I posted there, and the belief that it is not notable and not ref'd properly. It has nothing to do with this article. GregJackP Boomer! 23:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added one more non-trivial reference "2011: Nigerians In Diaspora Back Jonathan"--Etauso (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have just referenced an article from the Voice of America which featured Mr. Omokri in a non trivial mention--Etauso (talk) 09:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article has seen many improvements since the deletion debate began. It seems there is not an abundance of material on the subject, so the author has to make do with what he has. Blog comments need to be kept out due to their biases, which has been pointed out. Also, more of the material critical to the subject from the references should be inserted into the article, because it is to reflect the subject in an objective manner. Wikipedia articles are to provide all reliable info available, not just the positive stuff. My vote to keep this article remains, as it is stronger than when I first read it. Bill Pollard (talk) 11:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with the writer above that this article should remain. I have seen many improvements and all unreliable material has been removed, plus more material critical of the subject has been added. naijacicero (talk) 09:08 AM, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Managed Testing Service[edit]

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

Not notable, declined prod. GregJackP Boomer! 11:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Somebody's listing of one of the hundreds of meanings / examples of a vague term. Zero references, zero indication of wp:notability for that particular use of the term, and such appears unlikely. North8000 (talk) 11:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is essentially a dictionary definition, with little encyclopedic content of value. Hairhorn (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that it was not prodded, it was A3'd by me when it was just a link to what I assume was the creator's page. They added content, invalidating the A3 so it was declined. I do however agree with the above and suggest delete. Syrthiss (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article went through a lot of changes yesterday, at the end of which I had removed the External Link to the company whose link was the original entire article content. What's left is just an unreferenced general description which does not seem significant enough to merit an article. AllyD (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nonnotable company article, no RS to establish notability, created by an SPA as likely promotional. Dialectric (talk) 11:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable company. Fails WP:CORP. — ΛΧΣ21™ 06:16, 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 delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Lyne[edit]

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

Delete due to lack of notability in accordance with the general notability guidelines, which require significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Amateur road bike racer that won a regional race for participants under 16 years of age. A7 declined. Cindy(talk to me) 10:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as admin who declined speedy - there is no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable (yet). Francl (talk) 11:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is an autobiography. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 20:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the comment above. — ΛΧΣ21™ 06:16, 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 delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Faeids[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, possible original research; article is reliant on sources associated with the subject and the coining or appropriation of the term (refs to Tolkien and Bradley are peripheral to core of subject). Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/query - do you think its worth merging somewhere into Fairy? Stalwart111 (talk) 10:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Possibly, although I'm not sure if even a mention there would be sufficiently notable. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be right. Either way, with regard to this particular article, I'm in favour of Delete. (Stalwart111 (talk) 01:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Delete Seldom do I get such a disparate set of GHits: books gets a bunch of odd, unrelated-to-each-other cites, while news gives typos and a few hits of one or more Mr. Faeids. All the hits are on websites, and they all seem to be in-universe, as it were. It's suspicious that all the references fail to include URLs even though the only meaningful ones appear to be web citations. I'm pretty sure we're being used to promote someone's interesting novel idea. Mangoe (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google Books and Google Scholar did not produce conclusive results.--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "known as faerie knowers"? This may be clearly original research, and if not, the designation is not notable enough or broad anough to deserve an article. — ΛΧΣ21™ 06:19, 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 delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TALK2ME[edit]

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

This doesn't look like it passes the general notability guideline. The first two sources in the article (worldwidecorporateevents.com and drogrady.com) are not independent, and cannot be used to prove notability. The Independent Publishers source shows that O'Grady's book won silver in the "Communication Skills/Networking" category of the First Annual Axiom Business Book Awards, but this award doesn't seem well-established enough for us to take it as proof of notability.

When searching online I found one source, chapter 18 of this book. This is a whole chapter, but I wonder about the book's independence from the subject - it reads an awful lot like an advertisement, and it retains the copyright symbol when it mentions TALK2ME. All in all, I'm not convinced that this subject is notable enough for Wikipedia yet. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: my findings don't differ from those of Mr. Stradivarius. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 12:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither my findings did. This doesn't meet the general notability guideline. — ΛΧΣ21™ 06:17, 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 DELETE, WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 06:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of modern conveniences[edit]

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

Contested prod. Unreferenced and pointless list of impossibly wide scope. It seems that basically anything that's ever been invented or developed in modern times could be added here. Bencherlite ^Talk 08:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While esoteric, this list will prove increasingly valuable to scholars and others doing research on convenience. Countless innovations are neither modern nor conveniences. Wax seals, divining rods, candlelight, philology, sundials, Muzak, hardened plastic containers, and nation-states are all examples of innovations that are not modern, not convenient, or both. Doctortrends (talk) 05:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT. Way too general and vague to be of much use. What does SALAT stand for? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something like "Stand-alone lists - appropriate topics" I think. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above described reasons. North8000 (talk) 11:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unmaintainable, vague, pointless. Could include almost anything in Wikipedia. --causa sui (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could include Wikipedia itself, come to think of it... Bencherlite ^Talk 16:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The list criteria are way to general and the scope is impossibly large.Rorshacma (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 6 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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interchange (software)[edit]

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

Missing notability, no references from reliable sources, only list of used technology Nsendetzky (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 30 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - couldn't find any coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't establish notability under current or previous names. --Kvng (talk) 17:11, 8 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) 18:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scoop (software)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable software product. Slash (weblog system) was also not notable. All coverage is fleeting and certainly not significant. At the very least, this needs to be merged with Kuro5hin (which has serious primary source issues, so that might not be a bad idea). Mythpage88 (talk) 17:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 30 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, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per comments and sources found by Dhartung in the previous AfD, followed by a ((trout)) to all those who voted "Keep" last time and then didn't add the sources to the article. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't find significant enough mention the references listed in the previous AfD discussion to establish notability. Didn't find any new sources either. --Kvng (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to lean towards "delete" now actually - of the sources given, the only one that mentions anything close to a paragraph on Scoop is this one and this book has one line on it. Not really what I'd call "significant coverage". Still, I'll keep looking for a bit. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:20, 8 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 The X Factor Philippines (season 1). Please note that "merge and delete" is not usually an appropriate way to !vote, as merging and deleting would violate Wikipedia's content licence. Have a look at WP:MAD for the details. Thanks. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The X Factor Philippines Television Ratings[edit]

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

Per discussion on Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines, as one editor raised concerns about this article reeking of excessive fancruft. Article seems well-formatted, it's just that the ratings do not seem notable or worthy enough for inclusion. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was originally part of The X Factor Philippines (season 1). However, it seems that the article may look to long if I continue to add it there. So I decided to make a separate consolidated article for the ratings of the current season, and to the future seasons as well. But, I still do think that it has the right to have its own separate article. But, if everyone will not agree then... we can merge it back to The X Factor Philippines (season 1). --Renzoy16 | Contact Me 10:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to vote. ~~Keep~~ Merge.--Renzoy16 | Contact Me 10:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge per nom. TBran dl ey 00:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to stray into WP:NOTDIRECTORY territory, as an encyclopedia should not be a repository for simple statistics. Tarc (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spinoff to a list of The X-Factor Philippines episodes unless there's only one season, which means this should be merged to the ~~season 1~~ main article and the link be deleted. –H T D 05:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not have The X Factor. Do we really need a separate article for the show's ratings? Can't such information be included in the main article instead? It doesn't have to be super detailed anyway. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The X Factor Philippines (season 1) as suggested by Renzoy16. Bearian (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -WayKurat (talk) 09:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge per nom --Mediran ^talk 13:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should close this now. --Renzoy16 | Contact Me 14:31, 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. v/r - T P 20:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cursed Since Birth[edit]

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

Non-notable audio release. No independent refs with indepth coverage. Peaking at 289 does not imply notability (and the ref supporting that claim is dead). PROD removed by IP. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Cursed Since Birth should not be deleted~~ - It's by a popular American Comedian and released on a mainstream label Island/Def Jam. The Release is as important as any comedy album released in 2012. Duran's other two are listed on Wikipedia and Cursed Since Birth should be included.

I've included a couple additional refs and tagged it accordingly: How Embarrassing, Jeff “J.J. Star” Duran Is ‘Cursed Since Birth’ --JosephDann (talk • contribs) 21:49, 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 05:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. The farcical claim that "is as important as any comedy album released in 2012" is not supported by any evidence. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Duffbeerformes reasons for this article being deleted doesn't come from a personal place.The later is a farcical claim, please don't delete because of Duffbeerforme's personal likes/dislikes in entertainment. The album is on a major label, the comedian is a twenty year legend, and it has made several best of 2012 album lists as provided in the refs. Somebody's personal hatred of this artist shouldn't be the deciding reason in this article's deletion. Please Don't Delete!--JosephDann (talk) 23:02, 31 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, Wily D 05:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - first, please see WP:MERCY and WP:ILIKEIT. Then have a read of WP:N and WP:V. I don't think this nom was created because of someone's "hatred" and suggesting as much is clearly not in the spirit of either WP:CIV or WP:FOC. There is a reference to the artist being listed as PeekYou's "most influential comic on the web" which I think is where the WP:ITSIMPORTANT assertion came from but this does not establish the notability of the album itself as notability is not inherited from the artist. There are no reviews of the album that I can find - certainly not from reliable, independent third parties. My view is that the subject fails WP:NALBUMS fairly clearly. It might be worth merging some of the content into the artist's article but a stand-alone article is not justified. Stalwart111 (talk) 06:11, 5 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. v/r - T P 20:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blood (In This Moment song)[edit]

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

Song without any evidence of notability. I and one other editor had redirected it to the band, but its creator has twice reverted this. Bringing it here for a ruling on either deletion or redirecting. Dmol (talk) 13:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 14:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 15 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:42, 21 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article claims this single made it onto a Billboard chart, so it passes NSONG if true and the fact a music video was made for it offers enough additional discussion to justify the article. Can anyone with a Billboard account verify that it actually did chart? Billboard has their archival charts from #11 down locked behind a paywall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandmartin11 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 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, Wily D 05:26, 5 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. v/r - T P 20:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sahi (software)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, Advertisement,Non Notable. insufficient trivial coverage from non reliable secondary sources. Hu12 (talk) 04:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one of a handful of open source projects that may never achieve notability. When it does, I will certainly support the article's creation. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 01:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 15 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, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:40, 21 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no 3rd party references provided, no indication of notability, created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of 3rd party coverage out there. From the first AfD: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14], and to add to those [15] [16] [17] [18] — Frankie (talk) 20:32, 29 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, Wily D 05:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources from prior AfD and new ones listed by Frankie. Would be helpful to incorporate some/all of these references into the article. If I have time later today, I'll have a go at that. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:01, 5 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 CSD G12. v/r - T P 01:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kings Hall[edit]

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

Copy and paste from Belle Vue Zoological Gardens Malleus Fatuorum 03:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - clearly not a case of Merge as the same content appears in Belle Vue Zoological Gardens (but with sources), as noted above. Would venture to suggest this article could be improved (with the addition of the 7 sources from the parent gardens article) and that a substantial portion of the text could be removed from the parent article with a ((main| redirect tag. Just not sure that there is value in keeping the page just because we can. It would forever remain not much more than a stub (I would suggest). The page could always be recreated if there is some substantial amount of coverage in the future about this particular part of the gardens which would make the parent gardens article to large to navigate comfortably. Thoughts? Stalwart111 (talk) 06:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep i think the article should remain and the portiom in the belle vue article reduced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttchunker (talk • contribs) 07:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Buttchunker (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect this article which has been cut and pasted from a featured article. To remove it would mean the featured article wasn't comprehensively covered. J3Mrs (talk) 07:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make sure the original redirect to the disambiguation article is replaced (Kings Hall -> King's Hall). There are many similarly named halls, so even if it was kept the article should be renamed to include the city. I agree with Malleus, however, that the article is not likely to ever get much larger, so we should keep it part of the Belle Vue article. Once someone provides evidence (with new referenced content in the Belle Vue article) that the subject can be expanded, we can always split the article out properly (with its citations). Don Lammers (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Already covered in the main article. WWGB (talk) 12:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Already covered in the main article.--John (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No need for the deletion tool. No need for AFD. No need for administrators. Just revert to this revision of the article and undo this edit. That's two edits. Uncle G (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Already tried, not once but twice. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per most of the above. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this is a content fork placed at an ambiguous title. I have restored the title as a redirect to the disambiguation page. If there is any reason to have a separate article on this subject, it should be at an unambiguous name. older ≠ wiser 00:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note - after Uncle G above, Mr Stephen's previous efforts and older ≠ wiser's new redirect I have asked an uninvolved admin to consider closing this AfD. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 00:48, 6 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. This is a tricky case because it involves the concept of inherited notability, which is usually frowned upon in Wikipedia. However, there seems to be a reasonable argument that inherited notability does apply, as both parent and daughter articles are notable. Additionally, there haven't been any deletion arguments advanced other than from the nominator, so "keep" seems a reasonable choice. This result should not preclude the result of future discussions of exactly how the notability of articles like these should be construed from the sources, however. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

View from the Vault[edit]

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

This is not really necessary--any meaningful content is covered in the articles on the albums themselves. A brief explanatory note at Grateful Dead discography should suffice. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is the parent article for four other articles: View from the Vault, Volume One, View from the Vault, Volume Two, View from the Vault, Volume Three, and View from the Vault, Volume Four. These albums are not simply associated in name; they are an album series, as demonstrated by their collection into a box set ([19]). However notable the individual albums are, the series is more notable. If the series article and the individual album articles are considered to duplicate each other, then it is the album articles that should be removed (ie. merged here), not the other way around. Neelix (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Each of the four View from the Vault albums is a separate and distinct album, and each is certainly notable in its own right. Therefore, each of the four albums should definitely continue to have its own separate article. But that in itself doesn't suggest either way whether the article under discussion, the one about about the series of albums, should be kept or deleted. By way of analogy, each Pirates of the Caribbean movie has its own Wikipedia article, but there's also a separate article about the film series. In that case, the film series is considered sufficiently notable to warrant having its own article, even though a lot of the material in the film series article is also covered in the individual articles about each film. — Mudwater^(Talk) 00:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - The example you provide demonstrates a parent article that is a valid article; it does not demonstrate that parent articles can be invalid. I disagree with your assertion that the Pirates of the Carribean film series has notability that is separate from the notability of its constituent films. It is the notability of the constituent Pirates of the Carribean films that grants notability to the series, just as it is the notability of the constituent View from the Vault albums that grants notability to the series. Neelix (talk) 19:08, 30 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG:

Two New York Times movie reviews: [20], [21]
Paywalled Pittsburg Post-Gazette article.
Paywalled Worcester Telegram & Gazette article. Summary from Google News: "That's a selling point to ``View From The Vault, a video/DVD release of The ... ``View From The Vault is the opening salvo in what hopes to become a..."
Paywalled Worcester Telegram & Gazette article. Summary from Google News: "The band's in-house Grateful Dead Productions cranked out the video/DVD/CD package ``View From the Vault II, which airs a 1991 Grateful Dead concert from..."
Paywalled Herald-News article. Summary from Google News: "The Grateful Dead's View From the Vault archive series just-issued fourth volume includes DVD and CD recordings of 1987 performances in California with..."
Paywalled Sun Sentinel article. Summary from Google News: "The home office is releasing View From the Vault CDs and DVDs of select Grateful Dead concerts from an archive containing literally thousands of recorded..."
Paywalled Daily Herald article. Summary from Google News: ""Grateful Dead: View From The Vault" is a live Grateful Dead show from Pittsburgh's Three Rivers Stadium from the "Touch of Grey" tour..."
Paywalled Philadelphia Daily News article. Summary from Google News: "There's barely been time to ingest the Grateful Dead's super four-disc "Steppin Out - Europe '72" and along comes the three-disc "View from the Vault III"..."

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response All this establishes it that it exists, which was never in question. The issue is that it is not clear that there are third-party sources about the series as such, rather than about individual volumes (which are explicitly mentioned in several of your sources.) Simply doing a Google search for the term doesn't prove anything. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for the volumes are sources for the series. The two are inseparable. Neelix (talk) 13:53, 5 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) 18:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andi Land[edit]

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

I see a great deal of content about Andi here, and do find there's web content on her, including social media, of course. Yet I cannot find a single reliable source indicating she meets WP:BASIC. Have I missed something? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance of this article is as much as those of Raven Riley's, Ariel Rebel's and Trisha Uptown's, all similar to Andi Land. Andi Land was the first (and only girl) to leave the industry, then come back with her own program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grabags (talk • contribs) 08:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do see that WP:PORNBIO does offer the additional criteria "Has won a well-known and significant industry award, or has been nominated for such an award several times." In that case, it becomes a question of whether her awards and noms are well-known and signficant. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe she does meet this criterion, as her main award, "Miss Freeones", does not appear to be a major one. But YMMV. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep? Ability to meet wp:notability looks likely, possibly has already done that. North8000 (talk) 11:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She seems to fail the the general notability guidelines without sufficient reliable source coverage. It seems like her article is original research or relies mostly on her website. She fails PORNBIO with her nominations not being significant enough to satisfy criteria 1. The XBIZ nomination may be arguably be significant but not the freeones or shorty. Criteria 3 is not satisfied without showing some independent evidence of that she was featured on the shows. The website for webdreams does not show her as one the stars while I could not find andi among the G4TV archives. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the G4TV link that Andi Land was featured in (http://www.g4tv.com/videos/43533/top-3-women-of-montreal-1-ariel-rebel/) and the webdreams clip from season 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuTeOfWuhgA). The Freeones contest is extremely prestigious, the only award that includes money, some $13k this year to the winner, it's the one most would like to win, and has huge sponsors from the trade, Brazzers, Naughty America, Bluebird Films etc. I'm now being asked to include inline citations, but the article is probably being deleted, this is ridiculous. I have no connection to this person, it was going to be a series of several alike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grabags (talk • contribs) 16:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, nothing's been decided, so simply continue to state your case. And if information is "deliberately misleading," by all means, correct it. As for the COI issue raised by Morbidthoughts, I have no take on this whatsoever. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
About the conflict of interest issue, you claimed to be the copyright owner of those images in her article. Several look to be personal in nature. So you don't actually know Andi or those images are not actually yours? Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some articles available I've seen, but it then shares information that shouldn't be shared, can't be shared, so I can't include those. Signed Grabags — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grabags (talk • contribs) 20:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- I have to say, I'm confused by how you're able to access articles with "information that shouldn't be shared"? Where are you finding these articles, and what are they, exactly? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Christ, I am not going to include links where it mentions proper names It's not meant to be a guide for stalkers, it's more like a witch hunt. --Grabags (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem that you understand what we mean when we say we need reliable sources to verify her notability. We are not looking for more personal data on her but rather, news coverage that suggests she's notable, period. I suggest you read reliable sources. Oh, and speaking of stalkers, you still haven't provided a credible explanation of how you have can personal photos of her going back years, and yet have no association with her, as you have stated. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I speedied this, nothing above make me see it in a different light, nn-pornbio Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I haven't been able to find any new information to satisfy the citations you require, all those links that might have helped I found were dead, the websites are no longer active, or they are on sites like Tumblr where you can't link, or Squidoo that is banned. I too suggest the page is deleted and I will try again when I have found more information that is likely to allow the page to stand.--Grabags (talk) 10:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no: it was my cheeky way of suggesting that you are not being straightforward about the conflict of interest issue. That, I believe, is a real problem here: you seem to have personal photos of her at various points in her professional life going back to her very first test shoot back in 2004. You've since removed that image from the article, perhaps because you realize it utterly undermines your claim of having no connection to the subject. Grabag's pledge to recreate this article a 3rd time if deleted is another reason to let this AfD run its course, so it can be speedied as a repost if it is deleted now and recreated later with more of the same "information," as opposed to reliable sources. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a pledge to revisit this attempt, if Wikipedia does not want to share this type of information, or feel it worthy, then I am not going to spend seven hours searching the web for one excerpt of a show to prove it exists, just because someone here disbelieves that information. I will not bother again if I can't find what has to be found to satisfy the criteria set here, and have the time to serve affidavits. The images were given to me, to use as I wish, free from copyright. I deleted those you highlighted, to appease only you. I have never set eyes on or spoken to her, we are from different countries and continents. There would be no gain to me, or anyone, if this was to have remained on Wikipedia, I have no connection to the industry whatsoever or her, just something I wanted to contribute. Many forums on the internet shares personal information should anyone wants to spend weeks trawling through, to try and piece together an article. --Grabags (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: 1) if you are not in fact the author of those images on Wiki Commons, as you state there, then I think you'll need a waiver in order to use the Creative Commons free use license. But I'm not an expert on these matters and this is not a matter for this project. 2) please explain what you mean by "...and have the time to serve affidavits." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images are now removed. I will need to submit to you a written affidavit to prove there is no connection or affiliation.--Grabags (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continued on your talk page, Grabags. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Morbidthoughts. Land fails GNG without reliable source coverage. Fails PORNBIO with only minor award nominations. Lacks evidence of being featured in mainstream media. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 7 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) 18:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

St Michael and All Angels Church, Polwatte[edit]

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

Non-notable church. No claim of notability. No independent refs. The only reference is the church website. On the website there is a history page with a reference to a 'The Story of St. Michael’s Polwatte – centenary book 1887-1987' which appears to be this work which appears to be a self-published work, since the publisher is the Diocese of Colombo and only one worldcat library has a copy of it. The Queen visited once, but there doesn't appear to be any in-depth coverage that I'm seeing. PROD removed by creator without comment. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a historic church (125 years old), and Google Books finds several sources. -- 203.171.197.153 (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed a 125 year old church and google books does indeed have a bunch of passing mentions. However I'm not seeing in in-depth coverage by independent sources as required by WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would think the sources in GBooks would satisfy WP:GNG. There will be 125 years worth of offline sources as well. -- 202.124.88.82 (talk) 12:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Apparently a landmark and old enough to be historic. I have tidied the article up a little. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This Sri Lankan church is 125 years old and has several sources. --Artene50 (talk) 04:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you point to three or four in particular? I checked about two dozen hits on that list and none but this one even came close to meeting the indepth coverage and independence test. The trouble with the rootsweb source is that it appear to be written by a member of the congregation. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:34, 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Seacat[edit]

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

I've watched this article develop, hoping that it would improve from being nothing more than a puff piece/homage to an acting coach, but that hasn't happened. As an actress, even the article admits most of her parts are very minor and often cut during the editing process. She simply doesn't pass WP:NACTORS. Her single attempt at directing involved a largely ignored film (limited release, grossing under $300K) and doesn't apprear to get her past WP:FILMMAKER. Her main claim to "fame" seems to be as an acting coach and the article extensively name-drops a bunch of notable people. The editor painstakingly lists the mentions of her name in the sources, however that is the problem, they are mentions. Admittedly I have not reviewed every single one of the sources, but every one I have reviewed is a mere mention. I'm not seeing the significant coverage required to get her past WP:N. While not a reason for deletion, this article, if kept, would need a complete overhaul to get rid of all the fawning and the overly promotional tone of the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've been overhauling the article, getting rid of POV and working my way down the article. I've reviewed most of the articles cited, and have found new ones, and she appears to be more than a passing mention. Even the film she directed got mixed reviews and not just negative reviews; there was a fair amount of media hype with her directorial debut. She appears, as an acting coach, to have made a significant contribution to the field of entertainment and meets WP:NACTORS. Article still needs work. AuthorAuthor (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones are you considering to be significant coverage? Good, bad or indifferent reviews don't make a film notable and doesn't get her past WP:FILMMAKER. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notable as an acting coach, not as a filmmaker. AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are you talking about her film and the reviews of it? And which sources are you seeing that are significant coverage? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working my way down the article. There's been a lot to sift through. I'll rework that part. AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Each time I edit the article, removing chunks of POV and unnecessary quotes within refs, the author of the article follows behind me and adds POV statements and adds more quotes within the refs. I wrote a note early this morning on his talk page. It's still happening. I just left him a message about edit wars. A bit frustrating. AuthorAuthor (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the author has a COI. I'd still like to know which references you've found that you felt were significant coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My sentiment as well about a possible COI. Re: significant coverage, an example is The Washington Post's review (mostly positive) in 1990 of Seacat's film and referring to her in the article as a "renowned acting coach." AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, simply being complimentary doesn't make coverage significant. The movie review may lend to the movies notability, but it does little for her.

I don't see how that can be negated when actor after actor refer to her as their mentor or having played an integral part in their careers, and articles over the years call her a top acting coach. It's consistent in multiple, reliable independent sources spread over several decades. She seems notable. AuthorAuthor (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we differ. Having notable people mention someone, even if calling them important, doesn't constitute significant coverage by a reliable third party source. Many people make sigificant impacts on many things........but until a reliable third party actually gives it significant coverage, well, they have a tough time passing notability. If I thought th ridiculous amount of name-dropping mentions wikilinked in the article added up to significant coverage, I wouldn't have nominated this. However, it can't be added up. 40 mentions of 10 words don't equal a 400 word article. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than 10 words in the stories. In several articles she's interviewed and quoted at length, not to mention the books she's referenced in. She's a well-known acting coach and appears to pass. That's what I felt after I read the coverage, which is why I'm improving the article; I think it belongs on Wikipedia. But I'd love to see others chime in here. AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then I will ask, once again, which reliable, third party references you are seeing that have significant coverage about her, as a person? Niteshift36 (talk) 02:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Article has been rewritten and her body of work is there, with sources. I've recently added that she's currently on the faculty of the Winthrop Rockefeller Institute Film Forum. IMHO, she passes. AuthorAuthor (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete - Very hard to verify notability given the substantial link-spamming that has been undertaken in an effort, from what I can see, to justify Keeping the article. Some refs are duplicated with different titles and it looks like that has been done to make it look like there are more refs than there actually are. Some are broken links or link to google searches or the like. Having checked quite a number of them, I've not managed to find more than a passing reference to the subject in any of them. Happy to be proven wrong. Stalwart111 (talk) 06:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It was a cleanup of a massive number of links spammed by an inexperienced editor. If duplicates were left in the article, it was an oversight. Thanks.AuthorAuthor (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should be clear - the duplication of references does not seem to be the only issue. I am still unable to find a single reference / citation that mentions the subject other than in passing. Certainly none of the ones I have checked are focussed on her - most are about other people and mention her briefly - see WP:INHERIT. Your reference to her being a faculty member of the Winthrop Rockefeller Institute Film Forum does not automatically mean she passes WP:ACADEMIC. Again, happy to be proven wrong but the more I check, the more I think we should be moving toward Delete. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we're on the same page re: duplication of refs. As for notability, if there's a national magazine or newspaper article written about acting and the craft, Seacat invariably is in it as a go-to person for comment. Several of those articles are not "passing mentions." Also, there are pings of older newspaper articles that aren't available without subscription. More articles can also be found using the spelling "Sondra Seacat." The citations show that she's a well-known veteran acting coach for the stars and justify keeping the article. AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being well-respected (or an expert) isn't necessarily the same as being notable, but I understand what you are getting at. I think clearing out all of the citations that are simply passing mentions (and so leaving only the good quality / reliable ones) would help people to make an assessment of those that we actually should be considering. Again, having gone through quite a few, I couldn't find any that would ordinarily be considered usable. I don't think, at the moment, the current references show what you are suggesting they do or justify keeping it but I'd be happy to look at the specific references you are referring to (and I'm sure others would too) if you post them here. I'm more than happy to admit I can't seem to find them but am very willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Cheers, Stalwart111 (talk) 06:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

OK, I guess it's time for the 'inexperienced editor,' 'puff/fluff' artist,' 'name-dropper,' 'edit warrior,' etc. etc. to chime in. For the sake of brevity (never my strong suit), I'll refer to the parties present as NS, AA, & S1, respectively. By the way, re the article's most recent edit, I don't think 'Sondra' can really be classified as an AKA; tho u can indeed find a good number of articles under that spelling (I've included at least a couple here - e.g. the Rachel Ward / 'Thorn Birds' items), it's not one Ms. Seacat ever used, it's simply a misspelling; tho spelled with an 'a,' the name is pronounced Sondra; hence, the occasional misunderstanding. Obviously, Ms. Ward - & likely a number of other interviewees over the years - neglected to explain this fact to their interviewers. And how would I know this? Well, what a nifty segue into clearing the air re those troublesome COI rumors. As I've certainly made no attempt to conceal (e.g. the somewhat vague, understandably deleted 'Conversation with Sandra Seacat, October 1974' attribution for a Steve Railsback reference), I have indeed interacted with the subject of this notability inquiry. In the 1974/75 school year, I was one of Seacat's students in the freshman acting class at CCNY's Davis Center for the Performing Arts. My life would ultimately go in another direction, as I switched my major to music the following fall. Nonetheless, I did retain, & still do, fond memories of the experience. Certainly, I was pleased, if not particularly surprised, when, several years later, I ran into one of my classmates who informed me SS had become a big-time acting coach in Hollywood. Didn't give it much thought, though, till I saw the Jessica Lange film, Country, on video in the early nineties, & there she was, my old teacher, giving a very nice, if 'don't-blink-or-you'll-miss-it performance. In the Spirit followed shortly thereafter. After that, via IMDb, I started to become familiar with the contour of her odd acting resume, an endless parade of bit roles at best, sometimes non-existent (e.g. Frances & Nobody's Child), only gradually beginning to put 2 & 2 together & realize that these 'acting' gigs were, in essence, acting coach gigs by another, more tactful name.

Anyway, enough of my reverie (& so much 4 brevity). S1, re your points, one unfortunate consequence of AA's commandeering of this article over the past week is the resulting decision to delete every one of a host of painstaking reproductions of the relevant article excerpts within the citations themselves (even for subscription-only links & a few that aren't online at all), all the more puzzling as they would almost certainly bolster AA's unwaveringly stated case for keeping. In any case, despite AA's assertion to the contrary ("Also, I'm not sure what guidelines you're looking at, but I haven't seen quotes included in references before, which is why they're being removed; they're unnecessary. Just the citation itself suffices."), it would appear that this practice is not unheard of in Wiki-land (e.g. Arthur Miller; Elia Kazan; Alfred Hitchcock; Howard Hawks; Albert Einstein; Fred Astaire #25, 37, 49 & 50; Gene Kelly #13, 17, & 23; Babe Ruth #70 & 82; W.C. Fields # 1, 8, & 15; G.B. Shaw # 81, 82 & 84). Ironically, in this context, the best case for including excerpts within citations is provided by that selfsame broken link cited by S1 - a Backstage West article, which seems to have expired since I inserted it. It sits now next to Treat Williams' name, but is actually a Laura Dern interview left behind when AA moved LD's name to another part of the article. As has been pointed out in this article's edit summaries, links come and links go, but fortunately for the purposes of this proceeding, this one lived just long enough.

So, for a one-stop shop for all those links, complete w/ excerpts, here's my draft of almost exactly one week ago, just prior to AA's 1st edit. Pay as much or as little attention to the text as u wish; its shortcomings have been thoroughly enumerated. To access the source excerpts, u needn't click on the markers, simply pass the cursor over. BTW, aside from the already noted fawning and/or overly promotional tone (plus the un-Wiki-esque self-reflexive nature of the first three paragraphs, pondering the difficulty in demonstrating notability for one so seemingly dedicated to avoiding the spotlight), I must also plead guilty to employing redundant links (tho not the alternate versions, w/ the odd formatting, including the entire citation in the link; those would be AA's). I, however, as I believe was AA, was simply using different aspects of a source to support different assertions at different points in the article. Of course, had I but finally gotten around to learning the actually quite simple mechanism for routing several references to a single footnote, this all might have played out somewhat differently. In any case, here it is: Sandra Seacat: edited DavidESpeed (talk) 10:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the one significant source for which I did not reproduce the entirety - or even a significant portion - of the relevant passage, was this key 1983 profile of Mickey Rourke in New York Magazine. And while it is included in the current edit of the article, that link is targeted to a slightly different portion of the text, possibly obscuring the actual start of the Seacat-related section. This version takes you directly to that point. DavidESpeed (talk) 11:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I were you, I'd avoid things like "commandeering" comments because AuthorAuthor has significantly improved the presentation aspect, eliminating the fawning puffery you wrote and if this article gets saved, it will be because of his efforts, not yours. That said, all your "painstaking" reproduction of the quotes where she is (merely) mentioned is a giant waste of time. Further, it might do you good to read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Just because some other article does things one way doesn't make it ok. And no place on Wikipedia is "a conversation" considered a reference. None of you have produced a reference yet that actually is significant coverage about her in a reliable third party source. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! Well, then, how nice is it that you're not me... & vice versa, I'm sure. Actually, speaking of my fawning puffery, the most embarrassing thing from my end is that at the end of three edits and all my windy digressions, I didn't even send the correct FP-filled link, just one of the recent, excerpt-free ones - tho I did go back and correct that URL. Getting back on point, however, I did not dispute your deletion of my unverifiable source; I simply used it as an entry-point to address your (& AA's) COI innuendos. Nor, if u were paying attention, did I in any way suggest that my amorphous 8/21 edit was a viable encyclopedia entry; it's just what it always was - i.e. a big, messy, albeit heavily documented, stub expansion wondering out loud whether it could qualify for full Wiki membership, but containing enough evidence re Seacat's career-transforming influence to sway some, tho clearly not u, towards the 'keep' camp. And, not to belabor the obvious, but without my research, we wouldn't be having this discussion; there'd be no basis for an article. Just a thought. Regarding AA's efforts, I was thrilled to see somebody convinced by the evidence on display here, and more than happy to step back and let an experienced Wikipedian take the lead in shaping the article to Wiki standards. The 'edit war' charges, however, were puzzling and disappointing, and misleading at best - the 'war' amounting, on my end, to one edit inadvertently undoing one or more of AA's earliest edits and one other edit which quite intentionally corrected three consecutive sentences, each badly misrepresenting its source (both of these occurring before I was even aware of AA's existence, much less his work on the article). Nothing sinister on his part, of course, just a bit careless in reading the sources, I think (tho perhaps I'd have done better to let the worst of them stand, in which a one-or-two-sentence mention of Seacat's In the Spirit gig was characterized as the LA Times 'writing a story' about Seacat - hmmm, who's puffing who?) The three-correction edit drew the 'edit war' charge; AA immediately revised my revisions (as has proved to be his wont, going forward), tho, as I pointed out to him, I couldn't help notice that he didn't lose the corrections. Anyway, water under the bridge, let's hope. Aside from the aforementioned revisions, and the occasional lecture on what;s Wiki-appropriate, life goes on. I've tried to stay out of the way as much as possible, occasionally contributing content which, more often than not, survives, in some form or another. In any case, I, too, am interested in hearing more viewpoints.DavidESpeed (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart is correct.....you need to read the policies we've been referencing. I've suggested that before. You are arguing things that actually go against policy and you really don't seem to understand what we're talking about in some places. Addressing your specific rebuttals just doesn't seem to be a productive use of my time. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I really think you need to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policies. Beneath every edit window, every time you edit, is a note which says (quite clearly), "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable", and the policy provided (link to Wikipedia:Verifiability) goes into verifiability requirements in significant detail. Simply adding content about a subject which is obviously original research and adding links to websites which mention that subject in passing is a very long way away from Wikipedia's guidelines and is substantially the reason we arrived at this AfD in the first place. It is now incredibly difficult to determine if the subject meets WP:GNG or not because most of the "references" provided are complete rubbish and don't meet requirements in any way, shape or form. While I'm happy to assume good faith, even your rebuttal/commentary here hinged on an article which really doesn't meet WP:GNG - it is a profile of Mickey Rourke which mentions his time with the subject (2-3 paragraphs) and is simply her account of her interactions with Rourke (even this is almost entirely focussed on him, not her). Remember, she doesn't inherit (see WP:INHERIT) notability from her students. The subject article has serious flaws, some of which I believe to be insurmountable problems (and that's from someone who is a regular proponent of WP:SURMOUNTABLE). Stalwart111 (talk) 01:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have been watching this for about a week and was originally leaning toward deletion. The article as it stood at the time of nomination was bloated and almost painful to read. I'm still slightly on the fence about it, as that I feel her notability is very marginal... but I'm going to err on the side of caution here. I don't feel that she fulfills the qualifications of WP:FILMMAKER, but I think there is enough extenuating notability to warrant inclusion. I would also like to commend AuthorAuthor on taking a poorly written article that is on the deletion block and turning it into quality work. Trusilver 23:23, 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, Theo polisme 23:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment, Trusilver. AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:19, 29 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has been considerably improved since it was nominated for AfD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — what Metropolitan90 and Trusilver said. Citing WP:INHERITED is besides the point where a considerable number of actors mention the teacher in reliable sources. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And "mentions" is exactly what I've been talking about. There is no shortage of "mentions".......notability requires more than mentions and having worked with famous people. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did read this whole discussion and I'm aware that the lack of substantial coverage was raised; my point is that a considerable number of such mentions in reliable sources makes a qualitative difference. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you took the time to read it, but I am unaware of any notability standard that says a bunch of mentions can be added together to equal significant coverage. If you are aware of one, I'd certainly appreciate you letting me know where I can find it. I don't dispute that the article has been improved, in fact I've said it myself. Unfortunately, "well written" isn't notability, just as "poorly written" doesn't mean a subject is not notable. In Metro's case, the reason he cites isn't a reason at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:Notability (people). The cummulative coverage deals with her directly and in enough detail so an encyclopedic article can be maintained.[22][23][24] The result of continued editing being that we have a now-decently-sourced BLP about an acting coach and instructor who was herself a theater, film, and television actress, before she turned to instructing others. Kudos to User:AuthorAuthor and User:DavidESpeed for their continued work in giving it the nominator-suggested "complete overhaul" since this article was first nominated. Sharing one's expertise and knowledge through teaching might indeed be reasonably expected to gain accolades from former students, and being influential to the work of others can show notability without such praise being referred to as WP:INHERITED. This article is a welcome addition to Wikipedia... alongside those of her acting instructor peers Lee Strasberg, Constantin Stanislavski, Stella Adler, Robert Lewis, and Sanford Meisner. Writing of her work as an actor and filmmaker is expected in a properly comprehensive BLP. Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Praise from ones peers may be short but does not then become "trivial" simply because it is short. I do like that The New York Times called her "respected" and that CNN referred to her as "legendary". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:31, 8 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. Despite of there being 2 delete !votes against 2 keep, I'd go for a closure per keep as one of the delete vote is the nom while other vote was made when the article was is pretty poor state ([25]) compared to the current one ([26]). Since the issues with the nom are addressed, I believe that keep closure would be appropriate, but as the delete votes weren't changed, "no consensus" would be a better choice. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 00:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Persing[edit]

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

Delete article: No substantive or supported claim to notability or notoriety regarding the article's subject. Jsharpminor (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~ - Simply because no rationale for deletion has been presented. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Deletion rationale is now present. Jsharpminor (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my speedy above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have improved the article with a number of citations to show notability. There is also an Albany Times article and several books that I didn't use. The Steve 21:02, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:26, 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, Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think [27] [28] [29] [30] are enough evidence of significance of the subject due to his work at Roland Music and Spectrasonics. This one looks promising too, but I'm afraid I can't quite make what it says — Frankie (talk) 16:40, 6 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. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect. Jenks24 (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipaediae[edit]

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

there are not many google results outside wikimedia projects, but if you choose not to delete it, its better to move it to the project space. TheChampionMan1234 00:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duplicate of article Wiki. Just because it's a mildly silly word doesn't mean it deserves its own article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Colapeninsula. Also, it's unclear why the pluralization of Wikipedia (I've used "Wikipediae") would suddenly adopt British spelling. --BDD (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and perhaps redirect to Wikimedia Foundation#Projects. - Cal Engime (talk) 00:16, 8 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.