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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Pressley[edit]

Toni Pressley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Declined speedy deletion on the grounds that the article was the article is not substantively the same as the previous version. While the content may have changed significantly, the subject has not. Ms. Pressley still has not played in a fully pro league, and more importantly has not received significant coverage, meaning the article still fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Toni Pressley is good enough for Ryazan VDV and Russian Women's Football Championship; she is good enough for a wiki-page. She satisfy GNG.Harvardton (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage not skill is the relevant factor. The sources listed are all routine, making them insufficient for WP:GNG, and the Russian Championship cannot be reliably sourced as being fully pro, meaning playing in it does not confer notability. All of this was already covered in the last afd, and the subject has not changed significantly since last September. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Ms Pressley has received significant news coverage as one of 2 players playing in a foreign leage to be called to play in at the four-nations-tournament at La Manga, Spain. There is currently no fully-professional league in North America for women's soccer. Harvardton (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Article needs expansion not deletion. Passes WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. The fully professional list is incomplete and questionable per multiple discussions available in the archives Hmlarson (talk) 04:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 23:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete per GS. No indication of substantial third party sources, so not convinced subject passes GNG. No indication whatsoever in article that subject fulfills either criterion in ANYBIO. Fenix down (talk) 09:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Passes WP:GNG. Not convinced the delete votes went looking for coverage, but instead are basing votes on content on page instead of available coverage. A quick search through Google News archives pops up [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. This does not include sources beyond that and does not include a more indepth search of Google results. Convinced by available search results that topic passes WP:GNG. WP:NSPORTS takes a back seat to that. --LauraHale (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article passes WP:GNG criteria, since she has clear notability.--SirEdimon (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 22:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Human No More: Digital Subjectivities, Un human Subjects, and the End of Anthropology[edit]

Human No More: Digital Subjectivities, Un human Subjects, and the End of Anthropology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced, promotional article about a book that it seems is not notable. Unable to find any reliable, independent sources. Fails WP:NB. - MrX 22:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this review shows its getting only brief mention in a major science mag.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I couldn't find any significant coverage of this book. --Cerebellum (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 22:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GIG Music Group[edit]

GIG Music Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable company. Unable to find reliable, independent sources with which to establish notability. Fails WP:ORG. - MrX 22:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – This is written like an advertisement, as the template on the article suggests, and this group is not notable enough for its own article. –TCN7JM 01:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Delete Without Prejudice pere SwisterTwister. –TCN7JM 21:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. The promotional nature of the article is a seperate problem that could be fixed, but the lack of a single RS supercedes even trying to fix this.  little green rosetta(talk)
  central scrutinizer  05:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now - As usual sometimes, record labels don't receive significant coverage aside from minor mentions through their clients but I really haven't found anything substantial for this company and it seems their website is under construction. All in all, there isn't that much information about the company and numerous Google News searches provided nothing useful. I have no prejudice for a future article if the company becomes notable. SwisterTwister talk 20:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability is not inherent. While the executive may be, it does not seem the company meets WP:CORP on its own. Mkdw^talk 04:19, 3 March 2013 (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 Square Enix. J04n(talk page) 22:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kazuhiko Aoki[edit]

Kazuhiko Aoki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable WP:BLP without significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If coverage is not sufficient, it should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Topic had been a redirect for quite sometime before the article creator undid, and continued to do so, without discussion. No coverage on actual person himself, this is little more than a "credits section" for his work. Fails the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – He has played a major role in co-creating several significant or well-known works, so passes WP:CREATIVE Bensci54 (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect back to Square Enix While he does appear to meet WP:CREATIVE #4, in the lead of that guideline it does say, "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included". The word not is also bolded on that page. When conducting WP:BEFORE, I was not able to find any reliable sources where he was the subject of the publication, and as such, does not assert enough notability in third party publications to warrant a standalone article. Mkdw^talk 04:32, 3 March 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 22:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Takayoshi Nakazato[edit]

Takayoshi Nakazato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unreferenced WP:BLP, non-notable video game designer Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have since added references to the article. I would also argue that he is notable as he's the director of the video game sequel to Final Fantasy VII. --G-Zay (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. Being the director of a notable video game does not automatically make a person notable. This guy needs to be covered in some RS capacity. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No third party coverage of why he in particular meets the WP:GNG. Those are notable games, but notability isn't inherited. Sergecross73 msg me 15:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As long as it clearly has no reliable sources. Delete! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Serge. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:11, 28 February 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 22:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christian massa[edit]

Christian massa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I doubt that Massa is notable. He doesn't meet WP:Notability (people)#Entertainers; the shows in which he has starred are of dubious notability. Reliable, independent sources are unlikely to be found (based on a Google search) and the ones referencing the article right now are less than optimal. dci | TALK 21:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Self promotional article written by subject's agent. Fails WP:BIO or any associated notability criteria.reddogsix (talk) 04:44, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We would like for this page to stay up as Christians agent. What in corrections did we make while making the page as we are pretty new at wiki?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamestwo (talk • contribs) 22:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• While your interest in promoting your client is quite understandable, it may be a good idea for you to review the conflict of interest policy. The simpler COI guide is a quicker read, if you're interested. Generally, editing articles about people with whom you share a professional or business relationship (which you do) is discouraged. dci | TALK 22:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion with creator regarding policies; more appropriate for talk page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If there is something we can correct on the page to make it more valid please let us know so we can do so. Thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamestwo (talk • contribs) 22:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] No no we are not his agency!! agent meaning write on the behalf of him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamestwo (talk • contribs) 22:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC) I would like to add more actors and actresses to wiki that is why I would like to know if there is corrections I can make? If you have a personal or professional relationship with Mr. Massa, I would suggest you review the conflict-of-interest policy anyway. If you are not related at all, it would be advisable to establish his notability. This is a key tenet of Wikipedia; this policy may be of assistance to you. dci | TALK 22:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Understood, how can we establish his notability more by adding more reffs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamestwo (talk • contribs) 22:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply] Basically, if you can find sourced information that meets the criteria laid out in the entertainers' notability policy, that would help. I am going to be moving this discussion to Talk:Christian massa to better facilitate AfD discussion here. dci | TALK 22:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The above discussion was moved to Talk:Christian massa. dci | TALK 22:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• A discussion is underway at User talk:Jamestwo regarding potential userfication of the page. I am willing to withdraw/NAC the nom in favor of userfying. dci | TALK 00:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I cleaned up the article a lot, but the actor still fails WP:NACTOR, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG by quite a bit. One of his claims to notability, the movie Warehouse 2012 appears to be a self-produced film. Every other part appears to be a bit part on various shows, not a series regular or even returning part. The one valid third-party reference barely references him at all as his name is only used on a photo caption. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The one valid reference has since been removed by what I suspect is a sockpuppet account. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 22:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barton Business Park[edit]

Barton Business Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The previous AfD should never have been closed as 'no consensus'. Lack of participation does not equal lack of consensus. I see no notability at all in this location. Wikipedia is not a directory. Trusilver 21:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. An utterly unremarkable local industrial park. While its existence can be documented, nothing raises this to a level of encyclopedic significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's some third-party coverage of this place, but all of it seems to be trivial mentions in the context of American Woodmark or Allegany County economic development, and it doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. (Also, apparently the business park has only one tenant. Ouch.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:04, 1 March 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 22:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Glame[edit]

Sir Glame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A fictional characher by a nonnotable author - Altenmann >t 21:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:BKD - regardless of the book's (non-)notability, a standalone article on this character seems unnecessary; I'm seeing little coverage in reliable sources.  Gong show 03:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I would normally recommend a redirect to the book's article in this situation, but the book doesn't seem to have an article. This character has not been covered in reliable sources. --Cerebellum (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 22:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Lewison[edit]

Ian Lewison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Boxer who doesn't come close to meeting WP:NBOX or WP:GNG. He's currently not even ranked among the top 10 heavyweights in the UK, much less in the world. The article's only source is a link to his fight record. The article consists of a one line statement saying he is a professional boxer. There are no claims of notability and nothing to show he meets any notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable boxer and lacks significant independent coverage.Mdtemp (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NBOX, and after a little searching I couldn't find any coverage to get him close to passing WP:GNG. CaSJer (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus here is that this does not belong on Wikipedia as a stand-alone page. If someone wants to merge or transwiki any of it I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 22:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in the West Midlands county[edit]

List of bus routes in the West Midlands county (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability. Sourced only from an open wiki on Wikia which shows no sources or page history. Wikipedia is not a mirror site for unregulated open wikis. It fails our policies on not being a directory and not covering travel. Fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOT. Charles (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Suspect no effort has been made per WP:BEFORE to find reliable sources for this article, as there are plenty out there that should replace the Wikia ones... will do this myself in the morning. WP:NOTTRAVEL wouldn't apply here... good look using this as a travel guide, as it's (rightfully) missing things like frequencies, which *are* encyclopaedic! Part of a larger number of lists for bus routes for various counties around the UK. To delete this would leave a gaping hole in a growing and in progress encyclopaedic series of list's Jeni ^(talk) 23:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep What she said. Rcsprinter (babble) @ 23:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 00:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read WP:NOTTRAVEL before posting? Let's look at the content together shall we?

Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc. Also, while travel guides for a city will often mention distant attractions, a Wikipedia article for a city should only list those that are actually in the city. Such details may be welcome at Wikivoyage instead.

Since you quoted the page, would you care to point out which bit suggests this article should be deleted? Jeni ^(talk) 09:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing in the above text to indicate that lists of non-notable bus routes should be included. They are equivalent to lists of hotel addresses which never would be included. Something not being specifically mentioned does not mean it should be included by default.--Charles (talk) 09:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to Wikivoyage. This information is unencyclopedic. A list of current bus routes is only useful to someone looking for travel information, and that information is appropriate for Wikivoyage, not an encyclopedia. An article discussing the history of bus travel in an area could be encyclopedic. --Michig (talk) 07:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is encyclopaedic, like for each railway station there is a list of services that operate there. Also these lists exist in some part on the Bus Operators page. My result is keep but we need to come up with a good reference way to avoid no references or 1000 references. Do we go through every Airport article deleting what airline routes go there? Or Airline destination pages? Mark999 (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia should keep the :List of bus routes in the West Midlands county (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as I am a bus Information/route information enthusiast, as I like collecting up to date information on buses and then up dating the information on to the appropriate Wikipedia page in this case the :List of bus routes in the West Midlands county (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). -Omnibus53 (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Transwiki (to WikiVoyage or back to Wikia where this evidently came from) or otherwise remove the article from Wikipedia. The reasons already given, lack of notability, concurrency, Wikipedia not being a Travel Guide, Wikipedia not being a directory of information, etc. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and move it to WikiVoyage, and if they don't want it then to Wikia. Non-encyclopaedic but perfect for a directory or travel guide - which Wikipedia is not. --Bob Re-born (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing GNG and being absolutely impossible to keep up to date for any length of time - theoretically, yes, I'm sure it could be done, but practically it's a disaster area waiting to happen. If we must transwiki it then let's do that - and then someone who cares about buses can write a nice prose article that details the history and summarises the current bus provision with plenty of links to the places the (up tp date) timetables can actually be found. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

talk it can be done there are references out there, like in the area I live Bristol there are at least 3 sources I could use to reference each route and it is an up to date article (almost) though I often get on t te council and even the bus operator about there own websites being incorrect and I also agree with Omnibus53. Mark999 (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Mark999. If, as you claim, even the bus operator websites are unreliable this just highlights the pointlessness of articles such as this. If you are adding information which is not yet in those sites it is original research and not allowed on Wikipedia.--Charles (talk) 09:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is updated within days once they are notified. And there is no where else a full list for the region exists only a search tool for your local area. Mark999 (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently there is though - it's on Wikia isn't it? And it could be on wikiyoyage too. Although, to be honest, I'm unclear from a users point of view why a list is preferable to a search tool for my local area. I'd have thought that a search tool - given that as a user I'm likely to want to go from A to B - would be much more useful, especially as, for example, there are five number 1 buses in this county. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If there is an article about the history of bus travel in the county, would a list be appropriate to include within the article, or would it be split to a separate page because of article length (as is often done with discographies in music articles)? Peter James (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would you include an almost impossible to maintain list when a prose summary is possible and, many would argue, preferable? It's certainly more able to be sourced and to comply with the GNG. This might give examples of important notable routes but mentioning every route would seem to me to be counterproductive in many ways. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've replied in the other AFD.[16] Peter James (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's far from impossible, there are only changes about 4/5 times a year to bus services as long as there is a good list to start with then it's simple to keep up to do. Mark999 (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki I agree that a list of bus routes does not seem to belong on Wikipedia and probably should be Transwikied to Wikivoyage. However, considering this article in isolation seems to be a witch hunt against people in West Midlands. Similar lists exist through Wikipedia for anywhere else in the country. Maybe it should be retained for now whilst a wider decision to delete them all is considered? On a distasteful point, I’m not a bus spotter myself but it seems that there are some people requesting deletion who feel they have some kind of a monopoly of integrity when it comes to hobbies. To refer to bus spotters as anoraks, using flasks and using unprofessional descriptive language (crap) are the words of bullies. Those words could easily be aimed at anyone who has an in depth knowledge about anything - including those very same people themselves. Let’s keep out prejudice, please.-Youngmangonewest (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some areas do not have such lists. Many others have already been deleted as non-notable. There no witch hunt as you rather oddly call it against the local population. This list just happened to come to attention because of being sourced only from an unreliable open wiki on Wikia together with unsourced notes which are not even on Wikia.--Charles (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can find a few AFD discussions that resulted in deletion of bus routes, but of the UK lists only those for towns or non-unitary districts - below the level of county or transport authority - were deleted; county lists have been kept. The current discussions may result in a change. A transfer to Wikivoyage is unlikely to be successful, for reasons I've mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Worcestershire. Peter James (talk) 01:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • If not Vikivoyage then UK Transport Wiki on our sister project Wikia will be a suitable venue.--Charles (talk) 10:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Most of the pages there have been copied from Wikipedia with no edit history, and many are without the attribution required by Wikipedia's licence. Peter James (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I appreciate that there are some areas without lists but the reason I say witch hunt is because only the West Midlands and Worcestershire are proposed for deletion. .--CharlesYou say that they just happened to come to attention, when there is no more evidence now that says, West Yorkshire, London or many of the other lists are any more notable or have any better sourcing. Shouldn’t they be proposed for deletion too?Youngmangonewest (talk) 10:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually Essex and Kent have been put forward for deletion by another editor since this one, although Essex has been closed for procedural reasons. Various of these articles get nominated fairly regularly because they are unencyclopedic. There is no "wich hunt" against any particular area.--Charles (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • It hasn't been closed; one editor has recommended closing it. Peter James (talk) 14:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Proposal This is an proposal which I think should be tried to improve the situation. One example merge these Category:Subcounty bus route pages into county articles and also remove lists off of operators pages and then link to country lists. Then come up with a universal format for local lists, remove service frequencies and such like (as I agree that part is not appropriate on Wikipedia]] and also make sure they are properly referenced from official websites (Not other wiki's) and there seems to be enough people about willing to add any changes there may be, then if the situation does NOT improve then consider deletion or other options. But to begin with simplify the current structure and at least see if it does improve. I do admit having the same informations/list on multiple articles does mean it is more likely to be outdated and confusing but I hope we can agree to give it a chance.Mark999 (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And a general tidy up I have merged many one line operator articles into a more substantial article and make what information is about more reliable and less unsourced lets face it rubbish information. Mark999 (talk) 01:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Delete. Wikipedia is not a repository for bus schedules. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not a policy or guideline - the closest is WP:NOTDIR, but it links to WP:SALAT for clarification; a list can be encyclopedic content as part of coverage of the bus services in an area, and WP:CSC mentions that lists can be created "because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles". Peter James (talk) 09:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• merge as suggested by Mark999. Perhaps we should have a general discussion about revising guidelines in the light of Wikivoyage, but I think this is important enough generally to be relevant here. DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we are not a travel guide, and I don't think this is appropriate for Wikivoyage either. Wikivoyage is not a dumping ground for tangential travel-related cruft. --Rschen7754 11:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find your comment to be most rude. These lists may be poor quality to you but don’t assume that your interests in life are any more worthy. I see that the word “cruft” is merely computer jargon but I’m not in the habit of stereo-typing people who have an intense interest in computers. That said, I am not entirely against your view that Wiki is not a travel guide.The main issue here is whether bus route lists are encyclopaedic. In one sense, maybe they are because we can look them up and “find out things about them”. On the other hand, the view of the purist seems to be that they do not meet Wikipeaedian standards. That maybe so but why were any of them allowed years ago to start in the first place? On maintenance, personally, I am not alarmed that someone may add “trivia” about bus fares or the like. It hardly seems a sin. As the father of a disabled son who derives great pleasure out of adding updates he finds, there are clearly more important subjects for editors to police. Attempts to make the Worcestershire list more robust in terms of referencing and sourcing have been deleted by editors, which I find disheartening. These were made to address at least some of the understandable concerns there are about verifying information. They may not be good enough but a little encouragement to improve them is better than the seemingly “WikiNazi” attitude taken toward only deleting this list and the Worcestershire one. Shouldn’t the same approach be taken against all other lists of bus routes?Youngmangonewest (talk) 12:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find the use of Nazi deeply offensive, and I find its use by the father of a disabled child beyond comprehension. You do yourself no favours using such language. To address your points: Saying other stuff exists is not an argument for keeping this article, and if it is deleted then yes it is very likely we will go after the other articles too. Trivia does not belong on Wikipedia, but there is an absolutely perfect home for trivia-obsessed transport fans at the UK Transport Wiki on Wikia. --Bob Re-born (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As offensive as I took remarks made about “bus spotters”. Quote: --Bob Re-born (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2013; (I'm guessing the spotters will be happy to move the content as they'll have somewhere new to stand their flasks and hang their anoraks.) and quote: --Charles (talk) 10:38, 25 February 2013”; “I'm guessing they won't be happy and I would prefer a broader and more neutral venue such as the village pump or AN requests for comment”. Vilifying people in these ways, implying that as bus spotters they should all be at the village pump because they must be the village idiot contravenes Wikipedia's rules on commenting on other users – i.e. no personal attacks. I think you should look up the word Nazi. In historical terms, I apologise profusely for using the word in the way you have interpreted it but as a derogatory word to describe bullies who have no empathy for others.....Those earlier remarks are deeply hurtful. On reflection maybe it was a “Wiki-pun” too far but I stand by the sentiment. If the cap fits. Regarding the main issue anyway, I trust you understand that I totally accept that these lists probably should be removed or rather Transwikied (awful word for just plain tranferred) and I am pleased to hear that it’s not a selective process.Youngmangonewest (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This is getting quite off-topic but for the record the village pump has nothing to do with idiots. It is a wiki place where editors may gather to discuss editing issues.--Charles (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn’t it funny how we can all interpret things differently? Especially if we're not aware of the nuances of what is being said. Lol, I think is the appropriate jargon to use here. Anyway, now understood. Fired up though by other clearly derogatory comments - I am also aware that an editor used the word “crap” to describe the bus information in a response to my son. We all have opinions on other peoples hobbies but there are places to express them. I don’t think Wikipedia is an appropriate place, wouldn’t you agree? As I said, I do understand why deletion is being considered but feel that editors should adhere to the “no personal attacks” rule. Is it too much to ask editors to use professional,sensitive and appropriate language when promoting ideas to delete articles? Colloquialisms in writing will so often be misunderstood or offend. I hope you will understand that it’s because I have a disabled child that I feel so strongly over the comments I have read. Believe me, I've had to fight a lot of prejudice already from knuckle-draggers over his disability, never mind something as trivial as considering this issue. Anyway, hopefully the final words on this now and I'll let everyone get back "on-topic". Thank you anyway for the alternative website suggestion. Youngmangonewest (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus here is that this does not belong on Wikipedia as a stand-alone page. If someone wants to merge or transwiki any of it I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 22:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Worcestershire[edit]

List of bus routes in Worcestershire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced cruft & bus-spotter magnet. Wikipedia is not a directory and not a travel guide - this sort of stuff belongs on the new Wikivoyage start, not here. Bob Re-born (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This collection of non-notable routes does not constitute a notable subject for an encyclopedia. It failsWP:N, WP:V, WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL. People should go to bus company websites for information on catching buses.--Charles (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This might be a wider issue as there are dozens of similar articles for the UK. I personally think the suggestion to move this stuff to Wikivoyage is an excellent idea, precisely because it is verging onto the territory of a travel-guide and I don't see what's particularly notable about bus routes, but it would make sense to expand this discussion to include the other pages which can be found through Template:Bus routes in England. Nev1 (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great suggestion - I'd love to see the back of all of these articles and if others also think moving them to Wikivoyage is the right thing then I guess the next step is finding out exactly where is the best place to hold the discussion. What about Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buses as a starter? (I'm guessing the spotters will be happy to move the content as they'll have somewhere new to stand their flasks and hang their anoraks.) --Bob Re-born (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing they won't be happy and I would prefer a broader and more neutral venue such as the village pump or AN requests for comment.--Charles (talk) 10:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - concise, factual, valid list and part of a larger number of lists for bus routes for various counties around the UK. To delete this would leave a gaping hole in a growing and in progress encyclopaedic series of list's. Not sure why the nominator is quoting WP:V as can very easily be reliably sourced. The list makes no attempt to be a travel guide so why WP:NOTTRAVEL is also being quoted is beyond me! Religious articles attract religious nutters, but we don't go deleting them :-)Jeni ^(talk) 23:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm less concerned about sourcing. The current footnote is a deadlink, but is easily replaced. The material can certainly be be verified, so I don't see an issue there. Whether it's something that belongs in an encyclopedia I'm not so sure. Your point about deleting this leaving a hole rather suggests that this needs to be considered together with the other lists of bus routes. With the recent launch of Wikivoyage that seems like the perfect place for information like this. I vaguely remember a similar AfD what feels like a lifetime ago, but there's no harm in checking (and challenging) consensus. Nev1 (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is theoretically possible to verify the information line by line with inline citations for each route but to do so is days of work and very difficult to keep up to date. User:Blue Square Thing recently did this exercise on a much smaller list of routes and concluded that it was basically a pointless exercise because the source material is constantly changing. This does not make for a stable encyclopedia and is just not something we should be doing. We have seen promises before to keep these articles sourced and up to date but in practise it soon lapses when the spotlight is turned off.--Charles (talk) 10:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think Jeni sums that up absolutely perfectly - better than I could rant. Rcsprinter (Gimme a message) @ 23:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Lists like these should be transwikied to Wikivoyage rather than left on Wikipedia. Imzadi 1979 → 00:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read WP:NOTTRAVEL before posting? Let's look at the content together shall we?

Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc. Also, while travel guides for a city will often mention distant attractions, a Wikipedia article for a city should only list those that are actually in the city. Such details may be welcome at Wikivoyage instead.

Since you quoted the page, would you care to point out which bit suggests this article should be deleted? Jeni ^(talk) 09:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There is nothing in the above quote to indicate that such lists should be included and much to indicate that they should not. Lists of non-notable bus routes are essentially the same as lists of hotels or lists of pharmacies. They are all just lists of commercial services which can be found in probably more up to date form on the internet. Such lists would be just as useful but wholly unencyclopedic. Claiming that something should be included because it is not specifically excluded is Wikilawyering.--Charles (talk) 10:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to Wikivoyage. This information is unencyclopedic. A list of current bus routes is only useful to someone looking for travel information, and that information is appropriate for Wikivoyage, not an encyclopedia. An article discussing the history of bus travel in an area could be encyclopedic. --Michig (talk) 07:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia should keep the :List of bus routes in Worcestershire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as I am a bus Information/route information enthusiast, as I like collecting up to date information on buses and then up dating the information on to the appropriate Wikipedia page in this case the :List of bus routes in Worcestershire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). -Omnibus53 (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Transwiki (to WikiVoyage or Wikia) or otherwise remove the article from Wikipedia. The reasons already given, lack of notability, concurrency, Wikipedia not being a Travel Guide. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-encyclopedic and failing the GNG and being almost impossible to keep up to date and reliable. By all means send the content somewhere else - and then write a prose article on buses in Worcestershire which has lots of interesting historical information in it and which talks in relatively egneral terms about the current routes and service as well. That's what wikipedia should be about. It's doable - trust me, it just needs someone to do it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If there is an article about the history of bus travel in the county, would a list be appropriate to include within the article, or would it be split to a separate page because of article length (as is often done with discographies in music articles)? Peter James (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you include an almost impossible to maintain list when a prose summary is possible and, many would argue, preferable? It's certainly more able to be sourced and to comply with the GNG. This might give examples of important notable routes but mentioning every route would seem to me to be counterproductive in many ways. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A list of bus routes would be relevant to a prose article just as a discography, also written as a list, is to a musician's article. My question was partly in response to Michig - for context, see discussion at Talk:CKY discography, where it has been suggested that a discography doesn't have to separately meet the notability guideline - but also as a general question for participants in this discussion. Peter James (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Current bus routes are no more relevant to an encyclopedia than bus routes from the 1960s, and neither is really relevant to an encyclopedia. A summary of the areas covered would be relevant to an article on a bus company, the routes themselves change and get renumbered regularly, and the minutiae of bus route X changing to bus route Y when it changed to take in housing estate Z would be far too excessive in detail. A list containing only current bus routes is only really relevant if you're looking to travel by bus, which is what a travel guide is for, not an encyclopedia. --Michig (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Former routes don't belong in a travel guide, and maybe current routes don't: one list has already been deleted here and moved to Wikivoyage and is now likely to be deleted there; even if editors of these articles joined Wikivoyage the lists could still be as controversial as they are here. Peter James (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting comparison. I think there are a probably a number of significant differences:

• discographies are usually fairly short - having just checked on the Bruce Springsteen, Grateful Dead and Cliff Richard pages (three of the more voluminous back catalogues I think)
• discographies don't usually have repeated entries
• discographies are fixed. Once created the record doesn't disappear, change it's route, get cancelled, change stops and so on. A record's a record once it's made. It's the dynamic nature of bus routes that I have one of my biggest problems with (after the lack of meeting GNG imo)
• the items within discographies tend to be notable in themselves - per WP:NALBUMS for example. Given the lack of third party reliable sources with substantial (i.e. non-routine) coverage, I'd very strongly argue that most individual bus routes lack obvious notability whilst, for example, Darkness on the Edge of Town has very clear notability (as would the subject of Springsteen's discography in itself I'd say). Perhaps most importantly there are very clear consensus guidelines that articles about albums and so on have to meet the GNG in terms of their notability; that consensus is clearly lacking in terms of bus articles - which has the rather bizarre effect of meaning that a commercially available album might not have an article but a bus route in a small town in the UK might get it's very own article.

Interesting comparison and clearly raises some issues that need to be looked at in general terms to try to establish what is and isn't notable. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the bus routes lists are kept, former routes could be included, either in prose or list, as they are in List of bus routes in London#Former routes (although that currently has "Please do not include services that are withdrawn before 1994, this list will be too long." at the top of the list). I'm not sure what you mean by "repeated entries"; there may be some, such as in List of bus routes in Cambridgeshire where the Peterborough article was merged, but it's likely that cleanup, and standards would be needed - I can't find a relevant guideline or manual of style. Bus routes can be notable, although most are probably not, but it's the same in discographies, with singles that don't chart, and non-notable compilation albums - this discussion has also reminded me that there's a category, Category:Record label discographies, where many of the articles are long, and often incomplete and unreferenced . Whether the route lists are maintainable depends on whether there are people who maintain them, and there seems to be more success there than with some BLPs, where the problems are often more serious than lack of updates. Peter James (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By repeated I meant that there can be several with the same number within an area - depending on how the area is defined amongst other things.

I agree that bus routes can be notable per the GNG. For an uncharting single I'd expect coverage in reliable third party media. So, for example, I have a book dealing with the early career of Runrig. It talks in detail about the 1984 releases of Dance called America and Skye - and there were reviews in the West Highland Free Press too. Third party sources exist - it is verifiable that they were released and where they charted. I'm not convinced I see that for the 22a in Norwich. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If several routes have the same number, they are not repeated entries, just as articles about different people, places or albums with the same name are not duplicates - bus routes can be distinguished by destination and operator just as Peter Gabriel (1977 album) and Peter Gabriel (1978 album) can be distinguished by cover and track listing. Maybe some routes have not been mentioned in books or newspapers, but its the same with some records in discographies. Peter James (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they could, although in general they aren't though. Perhaps more importantly the standard defence given as to why these lists should remain on wikipedia is that "they're useful" - very rarely, they're notable because they meet the GNG and here are the sources to meet it. Repeated bus numbers make such lists less useful, not more. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated numbers, where they are separate routes, make the list more useful, particularly as the same routes can appear in multiple timetables (for example routes 42 and 43 in Worcestershire[17][18]). They are not in the list, but only because the edits were reverted as unsourced. Peter James (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does "useful" mean in this context? If it means useful to someone planning a bus journey then it is well outside of our remit per WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTDIR. People should not be coming to Wikipedia for travel information. If it means useful to someone researching the history of a particular number bus route they will want to use more reliable primary sources as there are rarely inline citations to verify a particular route. Such citations could in theory be added but in practise they rarely are and I do not think they are likely to be.--Charles (talk) 11:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki I agree that a list of bus routes does not seem to belong on Wikipedia and probably should be Transwikied to Wikivoyage. However, considering this article in isolation seems to be a witch hunt against people in Worcestershire. Similar lists exist through Wikipedia for anywhere else in the country. Maybe it should be retained for now whilst a wider decision to delete them all is considered? On a distasteful point, I’m not a bus spotter myself but it seems that there are some people requesting deletion who feel they have some kind of a monopoly of integrity when it comes to hobbies. To refer to bus spotters as anoraks, using flasks and using unprofessional descriptive language (crap) are the words of bullies. Those words could easily be aimed at anyone who has an in depth knowledge about anything - including those very same people themselves. Let’s keep out prejudice, please.-Youngmangonewest (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thank you for your words about referring to bus spotters (one of whom I seem to be considered because I have an interest..?) as being the sign of a bully, but with regards to your actual !vote, there's a tiny problem: Wikivoyage don't consider bus route lists to be notable enough in their scope, and so they would be deleted. As anyone who's actually read the discussion at the buses WikiProject talkpage would know. However, I consider them perfectly OK for wikipedia. People such as Charles, Stuart and Bob do seem to have rather a hobby for persecuting bus articles, especially near Worcestershire, it would seem. That's not so much in the best interests of the encyclopaedia, as we all should be thinking of, and Assuming Good Faith. Rcsprinter (state the obvious) @ 12:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a repository for bus route listings. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not a policy or guideline - the closest is WP:NOTDIR, but it links to WP:SALAT for clarification; a list can encyclopedic content as part of coverage of the bus services in an area, and WP:CSC mentions that lists can be created "because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles". Peter James (talk) 09:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an appropriate level of coverage, as long as there are people here willing to maintain the articles. DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That depends on what you mean by "maintained". There are usually people ready to add remove routes as they change and add original research and unencyclopedic trivia about fares, frequencies, temporary changes etc. Properly referenced changes with inline citations are rare. The lists soon turn into unverified blogs without constant reverts. These lists put a heavy burden on editors like myself who try to maintain articles to Wikipedian standards.--Charles (talk) 09:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tbh Charles, that's what you think. Your are entitled to an opinion, but to say that one of the lists would turn into a blog without constant reverts is complete rubbish. As I know only too well, you are constantly reverting perfectly fine edits to update the odd route or two. They are a good Wikipedia standard - I don't know what you mean by wikipedian standards. I ask for evidence of a bus route list that you think has turned into a blog. Give me a link to one instead of just stubbornly accusing. Although, I will let you have that the majority or sparsely sourced, but that isn't a sole valid reason for deletion. Rcsprinter (gas) @ 14:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lack of reliable secondary sources is a very valid reason for deletion per WP:GNG.--Charles (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main issue here is whether bus route lists are encyclopaedic. In one sense, maybe they are because we can look them up and “find out things about them”. On the other hand, the view of the purist seems to be that they do not meet Wikipeaedian standards. That maybe so but why were any of them allowed years ago to start in the first place? Maintenance:-personally, I am not alarmed that someone may add “trivia” about bus fares or the like. It hardly seems a sin. As the father of a disabled son who derives great pleasure out of adding updates he finds, there are clearly more important subjects for editors to police. Attempts to make the Worcestershire list more robust in terms of referencing and sourcing have been deleted by editors, which I find disheartening. These were made to address at least some of the understandable concerns there are about verifying information. They may not be good enough but a little encouragement to improve them is better than the seemingly “WikiNazi” attitude taken toward only deleting this list and the West Midlands one. Shouldn’t the same approach be taken against all other lists of bus routes?Youngmangonewest (talk) 12:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we are not a travel guide, and I don't think this is appropriate for Wikivoyage either. Wikivoyage is not a dumping ground for tangential travel-related cruft. --Rschen7754 11:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find your comment to be most rude. These lists may be poor quality to you but don’t assume that your interests in life are any more worthy. I see that the word “cruft” is merely computer jargon but I’m not in the habit of stereo-typing people who have an intense interest in computers. That said, I am not entirely against your view that Wiki is not a travel guide but I would just ask why such lists have been on here for so long in the first instance and why is similar guide information about trains and planes available? I also don’t understand why the lists for Worcestershire and West Midlands are the only ones being proposed for deletion – see my note above.Youngmangonewest (talk) 12:42, 3 March 2013 (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. Secret ^account 06:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collaperty[edit]

Collaperty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

no indication of meeting notability guidelines. Some local news coverage and google shows some webinars promoting it but nothing significant outside of that. noq (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete no independent evidence of notability. - Altenmann >t 21:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as failing WP:CORP. Wikipedia is not a startup's advertising agency. Ravenswing 05:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, just another online startup, not enough time to become notable: a real estate social network and crowdfunding platform founded in 2012. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:15, 25 February 2013 (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. Secret ^account 06:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Institute of Planning and Management advertising and blogging controversy[edit]

Indian Institute of Planning and Management advertising and blogging controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This separate article is excessive coverage of negative material; the coverage in the main articles is sufficient, or more than sufficient. I am not proposing a merge because everything useful here is already in the main article. A redirect is unnecessary also--it's not a reasonable search term. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No separate article needed. The main article discusses it at length. Salih (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: as per Salih.--GDibyendu (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2013 (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 School District 39 Vancouver. Obviously, the consensus was to go by the common outcome. The speedy keep !voters argue that this nomination was an attempt to end an editing dispute, but the user who supposedly disputed, Flomen (talk · contribs), admitted that they didn't mean to spark a dispute and supports redirecting. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Carnarvon Elementary School[edit]

Carnarvon Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Redirect to school district article per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Another user reverted my move without explaining, so I am forced to open a deletion debate. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 19:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep per WP:SK, "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion. Also, WP:OUTCOMES is not policy. Warden (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously not, Warden. The longstanding consensus, as noted below, is to redirect elementary school articles to their respective school district articles. I know that WP:OUTCOMES is not a policy, but it is an essay based on valid arguments under WP:N and WP:GNG. How is this elementary school notable under policy? Is there an exception here? I don't believe this clearly an attempt to end a dispute, editors don't just go around undoing valid contributions because they don't like it. Please provide a better argument here. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 23:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per longstanding consensus for all but the most exceptionally noteworthy of elementary schools. Sadly, this outcome will cause the loss of such timeless prose as this: "Sessions start at 9:00, however the warning bell rings at 8:55. Recces starts at 10:35, and is a fifteen-minute break. Lunch, which starts at 12:15 and continues to 1:00, however there are three bells in between. The first, at 12:30, and the second, at 12:55. There is no end of school bell, but classes are dismissed at 3:00." (The inevitable lack of actual encyclopedic content is one reason why articles on such elementary schools are presumed non-notable. Elementary schools are to educational institutions as mom-and-pop grocery stores are to commercial enterprises.) Carrite (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to School District 39 Vancouver, the school district. No substantial RS coverage found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Clearly, the standard procedure is to Redirect, but as TBrandley noted the previous attempt to do so was reverted, in this case by User:Flomen. Is there a way to re-set the redirect and prevent its reversion? If not, then Deletion is reasonable. PKT(alk) 01:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, sorry to whatever debate I've opened up. I'd be happy to let the page be a redirect again. All I did was add sources. Flomen (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per WP:SK, "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion".^{© Colonel Warden} The nominator doesn't seem to have understood that message the first time. If any editing action, of which redirection is one, is contested then the thing to do is to discuss it on the talk page, not to call for deletion of the article in question. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Like I said, sorry for any debate I opened up. I'd be happy to let the page be a redirect again. All I did was add sources, but with very little knowledge on what I was doing other than the thing that said on the top of the page 'please add sources.' Ignore me please, discuss what you will about the deletion of this page, but know that I do not really mind what happens. Thanks, and sorry. :) Flomen (talk) 03:07, 2 March 2013 (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 Karen Hunter. J04n(talk page) 22:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Hunter Publishing[edit]

Karen Hunter Publishing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

no indication of notability outside of its parent company. Mostly primary sources given. noq (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page is currently being updated with more sources - in addition, page for Karen Hunter is often cited in error instead of this page....we are working to resolve this — Preceding unsigned comment added by SLFers (talk • contribs) 00:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Possible redirect to Karen Hunter for now - Google News provided (continues in the first few pages) some news articles and a few press releases but nothing substantial for notability and most of them are also through Karen Hunter, who seems to have gained more attention than the company. They have published several books by famous people but that does not establish notability. I have no prejudice towards a future article when they are notable. SwisterTwister talk 20:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as advertising. Then possibly make a redirect, while being sure that there is not excessive coverage of this in the article on her. I do not want to rule out an article, but it would have to be different from this. A list of [published works for a publisher has always been considered as promotional content; ww have so far never even accepted a list of notable published works, though we have accepted a list of particularly famous ones. A publisher provides a technical professional service--not a creative one like an author. I notice that not all the links are real: "no strings attached" ilinks to a disam p, which does not contain a listing for the book. "A Perfect Fit" is a 2005 film unrelated to this 2010 book, "Faith Under fire" is a television show unrelated to the book. The only book that would conceivably be mentioned in a proper article would be Mama Dearest, a NYT bestseller, DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 3 March 2013 (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 Greg Plitt. The history will be maintained in case anyone wants to merge anything. J04n(talk page) 22:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MFT28[edit]

MFT28 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Bodybuilding/fitness program by Greg Plitt, only sourced to an article by himself on bodybuilding.com. Fails to establish notability; Google search for MFT28 has found nothing but the program itself and its promotion. Delete or redirect to Greg Plitt. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Redirecting this page to Greg Plitt completely eliminates all the information here, as it is not present on Plitts page. I added a reference or two to this page from Greg Plitt, but I don't think the article should be deleted. Domcarlo (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Redirect/merge to Greg Plitt, I couldn't find any significant coverage of this exercise program. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2013 (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. Secret ^account 06:10, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My Wake Up Call[edit]

My Wake Up Call (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Advertisement for non-notable iPhone app. The app has been mentioned in a few media outlets, but there doesn't appear to be any in-depth coverage beyond regurgitated press releases. The article makes poorly-supported health claims about the app, and implies that it can help prevent heart attacks. Pburka (talk) 16:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete I believe that there is one wp-notability-suitable source here and that is the NBC news interview. (via youtube video) There's a sentence claiming that it was "featured" in about 6 prominent places. One is such and sourced. One more is sourced but to what looks like just their advertisement described as a "featured product" on their web site. I said "weak" delete because there is a possibility of other suitable-coverage, especially if any of those listed claims are real and wp:notabiliiity-suitable. North8000 (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's a direct response ad (seen in these magazines and these networks!) in Wiki form (and "NBC" is an interview on Las Vegas's KSNV-DT and likely a paid placement interview which nullifies that as a source straight off). It's an alarm clock app with 'inspirational' tracks; no different from me recording 'you can do it' into my phone and having that loop to wake me up. Nate • (chatter) 23:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete informercial per WP:ARTSPAM. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2013 (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 Soft Delete. Will treat the nomination as an expired proposed deletion, with the understanding that anyone who contests the deletion may request undeletion for any reason J04n(talk page) 22:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Varela Family[edit]

Varela Family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This seems to be a family genealogical page masquerading as an article. I've removed a massive pedigree list and an external link to a family tree 'Tribalpages' site. I can't see any evidence the family is notable as a whole. There are individual Varela's who have claims to notability and they have Wikipedia articles. Sionk (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Weak Delete, subject may have received significant coverage from non-primary reliable sources in books, but given that I cannot see past a snippet view, I cannot evaluate whether the content is significant coverage or not. The subject has received only passing mention in news sources. Therefore, given the lack of verifiable significant coverage I have to support deletion, as the subject does not appear to be notable per WP:ORG or WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 22:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fellows of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering[edit]

List of Fellows of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No need for this massive coat rack full of unclear codes and NE-titles. WP:NOTDIRECTORY! The Banner talk 13:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Pdfpdf (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a) The list is under construction - the "unclear codes" will eventually be clarified.

b) I have no idea what "NE-titles" means.

c) It is a list of eminent Australian Scientists and Engineers

d) No, it is NOT a directory.

e) EVERY person on that list is notable.

f) EVERY person on that list is worthy of a wikipedia article.

g) Do you consider the following lists to be "massive coat rack full of unclear codes and NE-titles. WP:NOTDIRECTORY!"?

• List of Lord Mayors of London
• List of Companions of the Order of Canada
• List of Victoria Cross recipients (A–F)
• List of Victoria Cross recipients (G–M)
• List of Victoria Cross recipients (N–Z)

h) Your "reason" sounds a lot like WP:I just don't like it.

i) I'm in a different time-zone to you and am about to go to bed.

j) I'm glad your user page says you are not afraid of being wrong - it suggests you are prepared to have a reasonable discussion. However, the "!" after WP:NOTDIRECTORY causes me some concern ... Pdfpdf (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem to admit mistakes, but this nomination for deletion is no mistake at all. Firstly, it it absolutely useless to compare different articles with your articles, as all articles are judged on their own merits. Secondly, if all your Fellows were notable, they should all have blue links. Now I see al lot of red links (thus going nowhere at all), a lot of links to disambiguation pages and a lot of links going places you did not intend. Thirdly, you give no clue why these fellows are appointed and what they have achieved. And last: this process will take at least a week, so don't worry: it will still be there in the morning. The Banner talk 18:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

so don't worry: it will still be there in the morning. - Thank you! That was extremely kind of you, and I very much appreciate the kind thought. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We don't need a list of every member of a private society. I'm not even sure the society itself is notable, and it's certainly not so important that it needs a page listing all of the members. The other lists indicated by pdfpdf is a pure red herring, as there's a fundamental difference: those lists can only grow. This list, on the other hand, is just the current membership list of an organization. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a) It is not "a private society". (What is "a private society"?)

b) I'm not even sure the society itself is notable - Then perhaps you should do your homework before "throwing stones"?

c) it's certainly not so important that it needs a page listing all of the members. - On what basis do you make that sweeping generalisation?

d) The other lists ... - Nonsense. You really need to do your homework before before making such obviously and easily demonstrated-to-be-false statements.

Pdfpdf (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - my head says the list can stay but my heart says delete - institutions can publish their membership lists elsewhere (e.g. their own website). However if the ATSE is a very prestigious academic institution (the article is currently self-sourced) with members elected on merit, then many of its members will meet the WP:PROF notability requirements. The list article could stay, providing all of the list members can be proven notable, per WP:LISTPEOPLE. Sionk (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for a sensible response.

Yes, the ATSE is a very prestigious academic institution. Yes, members are elected on merit and their achievements. Yes, the members do meet the WP:PROF notability requirements. Yes, all of the list members can be proven notable, per WP:LISTPEOPLE.

Also: Yes, I was sloppy in providing not-ATSE sources - I have replaced many of the sources with 3rd Party sources.

Thank you for your useful comments. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've fallen into the 'delete' camp. There is no proof so far that ATSE is a notable institute with rigorous membership criteria. I'm swayed by Greglocock who is in the industry and recognises few of the names. If the ATSE is not proven notable yet, it's membership list isn't a suitable topic for Wikipedia. And no doubt they have it already published somewhere on their website. Sionk (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled by your latest comment: There is no proof ... - Errrrrrr. Yes there is. See below. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question. What is the criteria fellowship of the AATSE? For example, the Royal Society article clearly describes the criteria for fellowship, and we can determine from that that fellowship infers notability. If fellowship is sufficiently rarefied that it implies notability the list should stay, but if not it should be deleted. Pburka (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, given the criteria for membership described below. All fellows of the academy would seem to pass criterium 3 of WP:PROF: "The person is or has been an elected … Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor." No problem with red links in the list, as their inclusion in the list implies notability, and the pages can be created later. Pburka (talk) 04:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry for the delay - I eventually got there! Pdfpdf (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep Anthony Staunton (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three names on the membership list indicated to me that it was a notable group. Members included a former Deputy Prime Minister, a former State Premier and a serving State Governor.

Anthony: Notable names on the list do not mean that the list is notable. See WP:NOTINHERITED: "not every organization to which a notable person belongs … is itself notable." Pburka (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was persuaded by the main article that it was a notable group. The fact that three high profile fellows represented the Commonwealth and two of the three largest Australian states consolidated my view that a list of members was worthwhile. Secondly, am I correct that the entire statement in support of this proposal was ‘No need for this massive coat rack full of unclear codes and NE-titles.’ This is a criticism about format which you fix and is never a reason on its own to delete. Anthony Staunton (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The real question is whether the AATSE needs to publish their membership list on Wikipedia. The question about which individuals on the list do or don't meet Wikpedia's notabilty criteria is secondary. Sionk (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is a corresponding category, Category:Fellows of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering, but I think having both a category and a list is justified, because the list can also include academic affiliations and induction years. Fellows of learned societies are a pretty standard type of category or list to have here (see e.g. the corresponding U.S. List of members of the National Academy of Engineering) and this is the main national academy for its nation and disciplines, so it seems that inclusion in this academy is a significant honor. I don't think "whether AATSE needs to publish their membership list here" is a useful contribution to this debate: this is not where they publish their membership list, and I think this should obey standard Wikipedia rules for lists of names (meaning, even though probably all members of the academy are notable, we should only include bluelinked names). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I checked the surnames of fellows beginning with A and G. I recognised one name. As a politically aware newspaper reading professional engineer who works in Australia it seems likely that I would be aware of more than that. This is basically a private club. Membership is by invitation. Greglocock (talk) 02:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Significant institution. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

What institution are you referring to? It's the list of fellows that's up for discussion. Pburka (talk) 04:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

• Information - Fellows

I'm afraid User:Greglocock's statements are quite misleading, and a few of his statements are just plain wrong.

http://www.atse.org.au/Documents/Publications/Media%20Releases/New%20Fellows%202012%20GENERAL%20medrel%20Nov12.pdf contains the list of new Fellows (not members) elected (not invited) in 2012 by the ATSE, and consists of 37 prominent, and in wikipedia terminology, "notable" people.

Whether User:Greglocock has heard of any of them, or not, is hardly relevant.

And if User:Greglocock is indeed "a politically aware newspaper reading professional engineer who works in Australia", then he would almost certainly recognise:

• Michael Chaney; Sir Rod Eddington; Dr Marius Kloppers; and The Hon Karlene Maywald.

Requiring disambiguation are: Alan Joyce (executive); and David Knox (businessman), Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director, Santos Limited.

Without pages on wikipedia yet are: Andy Greig, Managing Director, Bechtel Australia and President, Bechtel Corporation, Mining and Metals Global Business Unit; and Hamish Tyrwhitt, Chief Executive Officer and Managing Director, Leighton Holdings.

And these are just some of the 37 Fellows elected last year. Pdfpdf (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I described my methodology. You have chosen a different one. Mine is more limited than yours, because I am not obsessive about the subject. Here's why it is a private club .

• The Membership Committee is responsible for overseeing the nomination and evaluation process for appointing new Fellows.
• Each year, it presents the Board with a list of recommended candidates – those who it believes have achieved excellence and impact in technological sciences and engineering.
• Once the Board accepts the list, it’s put to the entire Fellowship for decision by Ballot. And the chosen candidates are inducted into the Academy at the ATSE Annual Oration Dinner held in November each year.

Greglocock (talk) 04:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth do you think the privateness or not of this organization has to do with its notability? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This National Academy has the same structure as The Royal Society. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

• Information - Fellowship

• Prospective new Fellows are nominated, not invited.
• "Each nomination for Fellow requires a Proposer, Seconder and Supporters (usually two or three) all of whom must be Fellows of the Academy and at least one of whom should have achieved recognition for outstanding achievements in a discipline relevant to that of the candidate."
• "A Fellow may be the Proposer, Seconder or Supporter of not more than two candidates each year."
• "As one of a number of related academies across the world, our Academy must respect international standards of membership and our defining emphasis on the application of scientific and engineering knowledge to practical purposes. Fellows from industry are particularly important in this regard. The Academy values its role in bringing together people with common interests to share fellowship. However, we must commit strongly to refreshing the membership so that it is the contemporary, high quality, active resource needed for the external work of the Academy, as set out in the Constitution’s Objects. In electing Fellows, the Academy looks not only for past achievement but also for potential to support our activities."
• "Fellows at the time of their election must be Australian citizens or persons normally resident in Australia. Their achievements are not limited to Australia. The basis for election is Outstanding Individual Achievement in the Technological Sciences and Engineering linked with Value to the Academy. Outstanding individual achievement is measured on the basis of Impact of Achievements."
• " ... is applicable to the full range of candidates covered by the Academy, including engineers, architects, inventors, leaders of industry, leaders in government and non-government institutions, academics, researchers, applied scientists, applied mathematicians, and those contributing to the public good."
• "The fellowship process is based on nomination, not application. It is the Proposer’s responsibility to complete and submit the Nomination Form, drawing on the relevant content of a CV if one is available and input from the candidate where appropriate. The candidate’s CV is not to be submitted."

Etc. The "Information for proposers of candidates for Fellow" document covers 7 pages (with no pictures and very little white space). The nomination form covers 6 pages.

Pdfpdf (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Information - Please note that I have refactored the List of Fellows of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering to only include blue links and redlinks to people who are obviously notable. So far I have only done A and B - C to Z is a work in progress. Pdfpdf (talk) 04:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Companions of the Order of Australia who are Fellows of ATSE. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added blue Fellows of the Australian Academy of Science. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A list of fellows of a significant learned society certainly have a place on Wikipedia. Ray^Talk 16:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I am amazed at the arguments put forward for deletion. At Australian Academy of Science, it says "There are three other learned Academies in Australia, those of Humanities (Australian Academy of the Humanities), Social Science (Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia) and Technological Sciences and Engineering (Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering). The four Academies cooperate through the National Academies Forum, formed in 1995.". All these four academies are clearly highly notable, so the suggestions above that the Academy itself is not notable should be discounted. There is a similar list of Fellows for the Australian Academy of Science, but not for the other two Academies. However the article on the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia is rather brief and needs work and adding a list may be part of that work. All Fellows of all these Academies clearly meet our notability guidelines, so all could and should have wikipedia articles. I have noted for many years that there is still room for a lot of new articles by looking a lists of Fellows of notable Academies around the world, and I have worked slowly to create some of them. This list is important and should be retained. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this private club is notable (not proven in my opinion) why do we need a list of its members? Greglocock (talk) 01:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, your edit summary is offensive and warrants an apology. As far as I can see there are no SPAs here. Please see WP:AGF. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any spas either. WP:AGF (unless proven otherwise). Xxanthippe (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I must admit, this is the first time I've seen Wikipedia admins called SPAs in a deletion discussion. I'm sure it must have happened before, but .... Ray^Talk 12:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greg: this doesn't appear to be a 'private club' which anyone can join. Fellowship in an academic society is an honour which reflects achievement within the field the society represents. According to WP:PROF, a person is notable if "the person is or has been an elected … Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor." If we accept this guideline, all Fellows of the society are notable, so a list of these notable people is itself notable, per WP:NLIST. Pburka (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, it is a private club which you are invited to join. Individual members may be notable, but a list of them is not.Greglocock (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious if you have the same opinion of the Royal Society? It's also a "club" which you are invited to join. Pburka (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or the US National Academy of Sciences? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I've heard of RS and NAS and seen them active in society and have seen members identifed by their membership. With AATSE, none of the above. Personally I don't think a partial list of RS or NAS members should be on wiki either, unless the selection criterion is defined by some RS. This is after all the same criterion we'd use with other lists. It seems to me that some very experienced wiki editors are wikilawyering their hardest to keep their little article in. Greglocock (talk) 05:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is the top-level academy for its nation (Australia) and its general discipline (engineering). In that sense it is exactly equivalent to the NAS. Also, your arguments are veering dangerously close to WP:IDONTKNOWIT. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you David Eppstein - I hadn't seen WP:IDONTKNOWIT before. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Greglocock: "I've heard of ... With AATSE, none of the above." - May I remind you that you are the one who also said that you had looked at A-G and only recognised one name? In that context, I'd have been surprised if you had said otherwise!

"It seems to me that some very experienced wiki editors are wikilawyering their hardest to keep their little article in." - I have been expecting you to do a Julia Gillard / Wayne Swan / [insert name of politician who never answers the question] for a while now. You do, of course, realise that when one has no valid argument, it is a standard tactic to attack the personality of others? Thanks to David Eppstein, I now know there's a WP page that no only descibes, in detail, how this and similar tactics can be employed, but it also explains why these tactics should not be employed. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shrugs, you started playing fast and loose when you suggested that I was pretending to be someone I'm not. As an Australian engineer for 22 years it seems remarkably relevant that I have not heard of this so called top level academy. Greglocock (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained on your talk page, I did nothing of the sort. I suggested/implied that it was not credible that somebody who reads newspapers would only recognise one name. All of which, by the way, is not relevant to the topic of this discussion. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you deny writing quote "if User:Greglocock is indeed "a politically aware newspaper reading professional engineer who works in Australia" unquote? That snide shit doesn't set the right tone if you are trying to claim the moral high ground. Greglocock (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not relevant to the topic of this discussion. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The key issues of concern would seem to be that the organisation be notable and that conferring a fellowship is selective. It appears to meet both of these, so I'm satisified that this list is justified. -- Whpq (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Other list articles get deleted if they cannot identify a rationale for the inclusion of a partial list of members of that list. That rationale for the selection criterion needs to come from a reliable external source.

At best this list should be a category, not a list.

Greglocock (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason why this list has to be a partial list. Anyone who becomes a Fellow of this Academy is without doubt notable enough to have an article. I agree that this Academy is not of the same prestige as the Royal Society, but it is of the small class of Academy. The list of fellows of the Royal Society has been split into several lists. More work needs to be put into writing articles about Fellows of Academies such as this. We have plenty of editors who write about sports persons and film stars. We need more to write about scientists, scholars and engineers who are notable enough to be elected to Academies such as this. Greglocock, I have no idea why you as an engineer have not heard about this Academy. It certainly is not as well known as the Australian Academy of Science, but is intended to be a similar body and it operates in a similar way. As a scientist I have certainly known about both of them for a long time. Nevertheless whether you or I have heard of it is not an argument for deleting or keeping this list. That it is list of notable people who have been elected to a notable Academy is a reason to keep it. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it looks more like another "old boys network" where friends arrange the entry of friends. The Banner talk 10:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is "what it looks like to you" relevant to the topic of this discussion? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: You never did explain what "NE-titles" means. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, not clear? NE = "Not Encyclopaedic" or in more common terms "Not Relevant". Titles are normally related to a study or a job, they are not awards (exception: honorary doctorates) The Banner talk 15:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, a significant institution, and including this list of members in the article on the institution itself would lead to too much clutter, in my opinion. In my view, the arguments made for the deletion of this list are pretty feeble and not grounded in policy. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC).[reply]

So, how do the editors select which members are in this partial list? That is what kills list articles, typically. The criterion for exclusion must be explicit, and not OR, and not, frankly, based on internal wiki logic. That's why a cat is better, if someone has an article already, stick them in the cat.Greglocock (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not a list of all members. It's a list of fellows. Fellows are all notable per WP:PROF. Pburka (talk) 05:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For more on this, see also Fellow#Learned or professional societies. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:30, 3 March 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 23:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 United States network television schedule[edit]

2013–14 United States network television schedule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per WP:TOOSOON, Let's wait until the networks officially release their schedules. JayJay^{What did I do?} 21:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose – New season information keeps on coming. 24.164.159.145 (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but new information will keep on trickling in until May. All the page will be used for is a rumor post were people will predict what get's renewed and what gets cancelled. It is also largely incomplete. JayJay^{What did I do?} 01:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The more information, the more space filled up for the article, so I oppose. 68.44.51.49 (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry, but the goal of these articles isn't to have 'more space filled up', but a well-researched and defined listing of programming that hasn't even hit the network's schedule boards yet. It's all in the 2012-13 article at this point. It's duplicative. It's unneeded. Nate • (chatter) 03:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As usual, way too soon, pilots aren't even done casting or getting their writers and nobody's decided anything; we go through this every single year. As was done last year, lock it down until May 1st from recreation, when there will definitely be sourced information to fill this out. Right now it's all 'show is maybe casting for a maybe pilot'. Nate • (chatter) 05:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Some shows's fates have been announced already, and this is providing a constantly updated schedule as we learn about what's happening with more shows. If people are looking for if their favorite shows have been cancelled or renewed already, they can come to this page. As well, this is not speculation, as there are references on all, if not, 99% of these shows, and I'm sure I as well as other contributors can ensure that it will stay that way. XFix329 (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If they really wanna know if their favorite show has been cancelled or renewed they can look at the current TV schedule, or they can easily Google it. JayJay^{What did I do?} 17:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the information needs to be somewhere on Wikipedia, so this is perfect time to have this article created 68.44.51.49 (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the information is on the current schedule. JayJay^{What did I do?} 22:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, however we don't know if those shows will be staying necessarily, so it's confusing to refer them to that schedule if they're looking for what's coming up this fall. And yes they could google it, and what's going to come up? Wikipedia. So we may as well keep this page. It's easier to look on Wikipedia than to have to go to all the network sites to check on their shows. Fix329 (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How is it confusing? Right now it's all duplicative information, and because as of this point few pilots have been filmed or scripted, we don't know anything about the new programming, which the network sites don't have because they're rightfully focused on February sweeps rather than September at this point, so by their very nature (and our common policy of never allowing articles for pilots which haven't been picked up to series unless they have sourced notoriety like Heat Vision and Jack and Wonder Woman 2011), they can't be talked about here because nothing has been confirmed or scheduled. People inquiring about pilots have many industry sites to consult about them. They're not going to find out much right now about the next season here, just a rehash of the 2012-13 article. Nate • (chatter) 03:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course we don't know a lot but that doesn't mean that we should delete this page. That's like saying a page on the Newtown shooting shouldn't be created till we know everything. We do have some confirmed information, so I fail to understand why we can't just keep those up. Fix329 (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's a terrible example. Newtown was a breaking news story and tragedy. This is a eight month process which won't even see anything released about it until mid-May. Both of them are under way too different criteria. Nate • (chatter) 03:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I agree that at this point it's a little redundant of the current schedule and was created a little too early (though not nearly as early as last time) but I don't see why it should be deleted if it's going to be wanted in less than 3 months. Until then we can make sure it doesn't become a crystal ball. CSB radio (talk) 06:38, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's a bit early, but there's already some verifiable information on pickups (MJF and Dads) so it isn't totally redundant, and I don't see much point in deleting just to recreate it in 3 months time. I think deleting it would be for deletion's sake rather than solving an actual problem. -Halo (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Undecided: If we wanted to start an article about the United States network television schedule for the next season, then shouldn't we have waited until the month of May (likely the 1st of the month) to start the article, since during that month, most US broadcast networks' television shows' renewal/cancellation fates are decided, and after that, the broadcast networks' upfront presentations for the next season take place during the third week of the month? Jim856796 (talk) 06:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 13:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep - The network schedule page is something that I have found useful since first discovering it a couple of years ago (speaking as a reader, not as an editor). The television season that this article covers starts in six months or so ... I don't see any reason that this is too far in advance for there to be meaningful coverage of it ... and in other areas of life (e.g. sporting events), we have articles well over six months in advance. I don't think we need to have a 2014-15 article yet, but a 2013-14 article seems reasonable. It looks like there are already two new shows on the schedule and that, to me, seems like a good justification for the article's existence. If it didn't have anything but a "trivial" list of shows that only included ones that have been renewed for a long time (like Sunday Night football or something), okay, fine, delete it, but it looks like there is actually some meaningful content there. --B (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Side note for comparison - I went back and looked to see when the previous years' articles were created. The concept was introduced in the 2007. 2008–09 United States network television schedule was created in February 2008. 2009-10 was created in February 2009. 2010-11 was created in December 2009. 2011-12 was created in November 2010. 2012-13 was delayed until May because it was SALTed back in December 2011. But I looked at the December 2011 article that was deleted and it had absolutely nothing there ... just a few shows that had been known to be renewed or cancelled for a long time. This article, on the other hand, has citations and several cited new shows. --B (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's not long until the shows start, and there's already information trickling in. I agree with the other user, it's silly to delete at this point. And the suggestion to use the TV guide is specious, almost none of the guide sites go further than 2 weeks, and finding info on them is horrible, which is why I use Wikipedia.Sfcat (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Cat[reply]
• Keep - Have use。--Qa003qa003 (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2013 (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. J04n(talk page) 23:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kaoru Yamaoka[edit]

Kaoru Yamaoka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article was "created" years ago by plagiarizing some retailer's page. When the plagiarism was noted, it was cut back to a single sentence. A variety of people and bots have fiddled with it since, but none has expanded it. We're told that the subject was a documentary photographer. Very possibly she was. "Kaoru" could be written in a number of different ways in Japanese, but "Yamaoka" is almost certainly 山岡. When I poll a search engine for the combination of 山岡 (her probable surname) plus 写真家 (i.e. "photographer") plus one or other of the keywords mentioned in the original, copyright-violating article, I find nothing. An unreferenced substub for which the chance of expansion seems remote. -- Hoary (talk) 13:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 13:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Hoary (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This could probably be deleted under WP:CSD#A7. It's longevity means that there's no real harm in an extra 7 days, but if Hoary can't find anything in Japanese language search, and I can't find any in English, I think it's time to delete this. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. When I made the nomination, I quite forgot to look up this name within the book 日本の写真家 (ISBN 4-8169-1948-1), which also has the title Biographic Dictionary of Japanese Photography though its content is Japanese only. Any Yamaoka would appear on p.415, between Yamaura and Yamagishi. (The entries are ordered kind-of-alphabetically; but the alphabet, if you call it that, is not the Roman alphabet.) No Yamaoka appears. This fairly hefty dictionary (price 9,500 yen plus tax) includes 839 Japanese photographers born no later than 1929. Occasionally a notable photographer slipped past the editors (at the Tokyo Metropolitan Museum of Photography). But not many. (So far, I've encountered just one: redlinked but article-worthy Kōtarō Kumagai [this fellow]). The reality of Yamaoka is looking less likely. -- Hoary (talk) 10:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Nothing under multiple variants of the name, ノコ倶楽部 (Noko Club, except a site peddling birch sap). On the face of it, this should be deleted outright on the basis of WP:NOTMEMORIAL for the legacy version of the article. Jun Kayama 21:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I tried a whole bunch of other combinations using 山岡 and birth years, era names, place names, etc. and came up with nothing. If it is not in Hoary's dictionary and no where on the net, it just is not notable enough. Michitaro (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A discussion of whether or not it should be merged with Undivided Goalpara district can occur on the respective talkpages. J04n(talk page) 23:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goalpara region[edit]

Goalpara region (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Undivided Goalpara district is popularly known as Goalpara region, so this article is duplication of Undivided Goalpara district. भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 13:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: Goalpara region is a present-day geographical region, that is currently used in the literature ([19]). The use of "Goalpara region" in modern literature is the context of some common characteristic (culture, people, or endemic flora and fauna), without reference to a definite boundary. Undivided Goalpara district, OTOH, is a former administrative district of Assam established by the British that is characterized by a definite boundary and administration. Chaipau (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Historically there is no political Goalpariya region but became so only after creation of said district. Those areas are part of ancient Kamrup. Scholars refers Undivided Goalpara district as Goalpara region, so everything from people to history can be discussed there. Undivided Goalpariya district is valid term and so called term Goalpariya region came into being only after creation of former. If you completly update Undivided Goalpara district and Golapariya region, we have almost identical copies.भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 13:54, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep-a sourced article on a geographycal region (not to be confused with the administractive district). The argument is notable.--Soroboro (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2013 (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 Muhammad al-Tijani. J04n(talk page) 23:18, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Shi'a: The Real Followers of the Sunnah[edit]

The Shi'a: The Real Followers of the Sunnah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

What has been said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/To be with the Truthful fully applies here. While this book is popular among the small niche market of Shia Muslims in Anglophone countries, it's not notable enough to warrant its own article. Even when searching the Net, any and all sources which come up - both those for the book and against it - are too POV-laden to serve as reliable sources. It's simply a non-notable book. Additionally - and I don't like to bring this up but there's no way around it - this article was created by User:Striver, a Shia user who had a long history of creating articles on non-notable subjects only for them to be deleted later. Now that Striver has been retired from Wikipedia for a few years, I think it's safe to say objectively that, while he made a huge amount of valid edits, much of the articles he created like this one were designed to push a certain POV. That's a view of these articles widely shared by those who encountered such articles, so it isn't simply something I'm saying as a personal remark but a valid assessment of edits over a long period of time to which many editors concurred. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(books)#Note_on_notability_criteria states:

Ask yourself if several libraries or bookshops, or a no-subscription website have a copy of the book, so that other wikipedians can easily consult the book, or at least have access to on-line or press-published reviews of the book. Usually, books with an ISBN-number and/or availability in a couple dozen of libraries and/or a Project Gutenberg type website, and with a notability above that of an average cookbook or programmers manual would qualify.

I think it's notable and verifiable, and worthy of inclusion as this book has a ISBN AND is "availability in a couple dozen of libraries", AND also being available for full download on several sites. Also, the book is notable enough to be republished by several publishers.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 15:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The thing about the part you're talking about is that the library/bookshop thing is considered a threshold standard.

However, these are exclusionary criteria rather than inclusionary; meeting these threshold standards does not imply that a book is notable, whereas a book which does not meet them, most likely is not. There will be exceptions—books that are notable despite not meeting these threshold standards—but they will be rare and good reasons for the notability of such books should be made very clear.

Simply being available in bookstores or libraries is not in and of itself something that would give absolute notability. Having a wide level of availability makes it more likely that it will be notable, but it doesn't guarantee it. We need secondary independent and reliable sources to show that this is considered notable. If you can show proof that this is widely used in classrooms then that could help pass notability guidelines, but I'll say that if it's going to pass purely on that basis then you'll have to show a lot of proof. It's extremely rare that a book will be widely used in classrooms but not get mentioned in RS. Offhand I have to say that WorldCat doesn't show it in that many libraries. [20] It looks to only be in about 100 or fewer libraries at what I can see, which in the end isn't that much when you compare it to other books such as say, the cheesy teen book Twilight, which is in over 4,000 libraries worldwide. Although this in and of itself doesn't say it can't be notable, as notability is given by independent RS and isn't based on how many copies are available out there. I'll see what I can find, but I just wanted to say that availability isn't notability.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to mention that the book originally was written in Arabic and then it was translated in several languages, in English, Farsi, Arabic, French, Urdu, etc.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 06:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Muhammad al-Tijani, but keep the history. I did a search and while I did see that this was in a handful of libraries (mostly universities), I couldn't see where this book is actually being widely taught. This might be a case of sources not being available online or in another language, but I just can't find much out there other than links to acquire a copy. I think that for now it'd be best to redirect to the author's page. His page needs some TLC, but I've found stuff out there that suggests that he is indeed notable. (Such as this link, which shows him being interviewed on TV.) I'd say that this could and should be used as a RS, but I can't find enough to show that it'd pass notability guidelines at this point in time. If sources can be found then I would support un-redirecting, but right now the sources just aren't out there. I have a feeling that if there are sources, they're in another language and not on the Internet and would take a lot of time and patience to find, hence the redirect with history. At the very least it should be userfied by an interested editor.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we decide to redirect then we should merge this article with Muhammad al-Tijani (& not only a simple redirect).--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 06:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see a problem with that- the article as it is now isn't particularly long and it's customary to have a section that talks about an author's works in general. This could be easily merged into an overall section about his work. Would you be willing/interested in doing that? I'm going to be presumptuous and say that you'd probably be able to find and read any/most of the sources that are in another language. I can do some stuff with Google translate, but it's well, Google translate and anything I would produce would be of an inferior quality. I can find sourcing, but it's always better to have someone that would be more familiar with the language actually read the sources and write the article.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are some other works by the same author, similarly with short and unsourced pages here on Wikipedia, which I nominated for AfD. Perhaps we should wait for those as well and see if we can make one consistent decision for all of them; if one is merged, wouldn't it make sense to just merge all of them and give the author's page a beefier "Works" heading?

That is, if more users support the merge. I don't know if more will want to keep or just delete, as there really isn't much to specifically merge. The information is short and nondescript enough that I could see simply deleting this page and, separately, putting writeups on the page for the author's biography (which is obviously notable but neglected as a page). Not to argue but to simply clarify my point, I do stand by my original delete suggestion - I don't think we can find RS due to the POv-charged nature of the works. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:14, 25 February 2013 (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 as promotional. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

S-soft HTML Editor[edit]

S-soft HTML Editor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article was created shortly after being declined at AfC. I placed a Prod with the rationale "No evidence that this software meets the notability guidelines." The notice was removed by the article creator (who shares a name with the software creator) along with the maintenance tags. The concerns remain so I am bringing this to AfD on the same rationale as the Prod. AllyD (talk) 12:03, 24 February 2013 (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 Nomination withdrawn. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FlexING[edit]

FlexING (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear to be a notable dance. Note that searching for sources may prove difficult due to the dance's name. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upon checking the article's history, it appears that the article creator removed some content from the article, which turned out to be coverage from the New York Post. As such, I'm withdrawing this AfD, although if someone else doesn't believe that this dance is notable, then I don't mind someone renominating the article for deletion. The article could use some cleanup, however. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A merge is still on the table and can be discussed elsewhere. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Media linguistics[edit]

Media linguistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced original research article about an apparently non-notable neologism. I checked several archives and was unable to find any credible sources. Fails WP:OR and WP:GNG. - MrX 23:56, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This appears to be a legitimate developing area of study, and has already made its way into third-party sources,[21][22] although coverage still appears to be thin. In addition to the sources I found, I noticed that media linguistics has been made the subject of a research network by the International Association of Applied Linguistics, which I see as a further indication of notability. The article needs sourcing and rewriting, but not deletion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It is certainly true that there are linguists who study mass media; there are even some scholars who identify with media linguistics (or medienlinguistische). I would be happier, though, to see some books or articles that treat media linguistics as a topic or field in its own right, as opposed to an area of interest within media studies or discourse analysis. As an illustration of my point, the editor of News as Discourse (in my opinion, the only reliable source currently cited; the other two are an apparently self-published web page and the German-language Wikipedia), Teun van Dijk, identifies himself primarily as a critical discourse analyst rather than a "media linguist". That is to say, "media linguistics" does exist as a scholarly interest, but I'm not sure that it has the required level of notability to warrant a separate page. Cnilep (talk) 06:49, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  You might have a point there - as I said, the coverage is still rather thin. Perhaps this would actually best be handled by a merge to the media studies article. We could start a new section about this there, and split it back out at some time in the future if the topic gets more coverage or if the section becomes too large. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Keep or Merge Conceptually, this topic seems like a branch of discourse analysis. It seems related to text linguistics and interactional sociolinguistics, but I don't understand how it is different from media stylistics. Regarding sources, I agree with with Cnilep and Mr. Stradivarius that the concept exists, but sources are thin. The Bloomsbury Companion source quoted by Mr. Stradivarius is the clearest assertion I've seen of the existence of the concept, but it was less than a paragraph. The strongest reference I found was Mediensprache: Eine Einführung in Sprache und Kommunikationsformen der Massenmedien, a book about media linguistics. The book and other refs mentioned may be enough for marginal notability. But a merge into media studies or media stylistics is also a quite reasonable action until the topic gains conclusive notability. --Mark viking (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with Mr. Stradivarius. This is a legitimate developing area of study. We can develop this article.--Goldenaster (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC) — Goldenaster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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. J04n(talk page) 11:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alborz Qazvin F.C.[edit]

Alborz Qazvin F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Part of a large series of unreferenced micro-stubs about football teams in Iran which have not received significant coverage or played at a national level in order to meet notability guidelines. c.f. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ara-e Gharb Kermanshah F.C.. This nomination covers a total of nine articles, for which I believe identical deletion criteria apply. C679 08:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eight related articles listed below per nomination:

Asto Abyek Qazvin F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Azar Battery Orumieh F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Chichest Orumiyeh F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Entezam Tehran F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Shahin Sanandaj F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Shahrdari Astara F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Shahrdari Fuman F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Shams Khoy F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

C679 08:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 08:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. C679 08:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. C679 08:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 10:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - they play in one of the divisions of Iran's football league. We similarly maintain articles about minor league teams for baseball and even tier 3 teams in the Premier League. This is the equivalent of that. Kabirat (talk) 06:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What passes notability in the English speaking world of football maybe different to the Arabic world. Because of the closed doors policy in Iran, it's hard for us to clarify what exists in football in Iran, a number of clubs don't play football anymore, some have been closed down for being a western sport! So majority of Iranian football does fail notability and we can't even asses it's notability. Govvy (talk) 12:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete all - none of these clubs has played at a level where notability is inherited (WP:FOOTYN), and they all fails the general notability guideline. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no indication that any of these clubs meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No WP:SIGCOV and are not in a recognized fully professional league. The single keep argument reaches for WP:OTHERCRAP. Mkdw^talk 05:03, 3 March 2013 (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. Sorry to do this again, but there clearly isn't any. Would writing an article on the incident and merging the people into it be an idea, perhaps? Black Kite (talk) 07:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Douglas (cameraman)[edit]

Paul Douglas (cameraman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

First AfD ended in No Consensus, but that was within days of the incident when there was still a lot of media coverage, thus influencing some editors to vote Keep. Now, almost seven years later, it is pretty clear this individual fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE. Mr. Douglas was just some random cameraman who was not known at all until his tragic death as he did not win any awards or recognitions for his work nor did anything that greatly changed the world of journalism or film. To say that he is notable just because of the way he died violates WP:NOTINHERITED. Foreigners are killed, captured, or injured in hostile nations every day. The attack itself fails WP:EVENT being that media coverage died down rather quickly and does not have any lasting effects on society. I am also nominating James Brolan because he was some random technician who fails WP:BIO and only got his notability from dying in the same attack:

James Brolan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The Legendary Ranger (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator would have to make a completely separate nomintion for James Brolan. The current link from the nomination of Brolan now takes me to this page. These are two separate issues being treated as one. Crtew (talk) 11:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Brolan article does not meet the standards set out by WP:BUNDLE.Crtew (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain how does this not meet WP:BUNDLE? The first AfD for Paul Douglas also included James Brolan and closed without problem. It is valid to nominate them together because both Douglas and Brolan are not notable other than being killed in the same attack that injured Kimberly Dozier. If I created separate AfDs for these men, they would literally have the same rationale as each other as nomination. One was a cameraman, the other a technician, but this has no impact on their notability (or lack of it), despite the improvements you made. The sad truth is that if these two men were alive today, we would not have articles on them. The Legendary Ranger (talk) 22:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this is not the first nomination. I'm not sure why nobody caught that the first time. Secondly, Brolan is a part of an award winning news team for its coverage in Pakistan.Crtew (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thirdly, why are you assuming the two are non notable? That's your opinion, but it's one that I do not share.Crtew (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth, I'm always skeptical of second time nominations, and it appears that this is rightly so, as none of the lessons from the first process were learned.Crtew (talk) 00:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, the phrasing of this nomination is so unfair. The nomination assumes so much, is leading rather than based on evidence, and does not even consider the comments that led to the failure of the first attempt.Crtew (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Moved this from the "Places and Transportation" category to "Biography." --Oakshade (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You absolutely CAN NOT bundle two articles into the same AfD. That is confusing for purposes of discussion and runs counter to AfD guidelines.--SouthernNights (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Besides the very high amount of in-depth coverage soon after his death including some extremely in-depth stories [23][24], years later, in 2007 and 2011 are examples I've found after a quick search, still received significant coverage. [25][26] WP:NOTINHERITED is for individuals who have not received in-depth coverage but simply related to those who have. WP:NOTABILITY doesn't care why someone is notable, but if someone is notable. --Oakshade (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is a WP:NOTMEMORIAL situation, with a dash of WP:NOTNEWS tossed in. My condolences to his friends and family for their loss. Carrite (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This vote is flawed because the error in the nomination process and we have no idea if the voter means Brolan or Douglas.Crtew (talk) 11:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Crtew (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Crtew (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Crtew (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - One thing you'll notice about the sources in this article is that they are extensive, as in WP:SIGCOV, and they have appeared over a long period of time. The latter would indicate that this article is in no way some kind of "memorial" -- a comment that appears in the first nomination and makes another appearance here. And it is also not "news" masquerading as a Wikipedia article -- a comment which would need some explanation as many of the events in Wikipedia appeared at one time in the news. I'm sure some people will think this is a WP:ONEEVENT, but if that's so, then why do we see multiple tributes and from more than one network (in this case also ITV)? What you have here is a respected journalist with over 17 years of experience at ITV and CBS and also a veteran of war coverage, who was murdered. The nomination actually belittles his reputation by referring to him as "some random cameraman". What this nomination side steps, fails to raise and seems to discount is that the killing of a journalist in a war zone is a violation of Geneva Conventions -- international human rights -- and was deemed by the UK coroner to be an "unlawful" killing. Moreover, Iraq is one of the least covered zones in Wikipedia in proportion to the numbers, especially native Iraqi handlers and journalists, of journalists who have been killed in wartime.Crtew (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 06:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Crtew's points. A read though the article and sources verifies that the subject was notable. And this keep applies to both articles, which should not have been bundled into one AfD. --SouthernNights (talk) 15:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete Every source in the article was published after the death of Paul Douglas. He would not have been considered notable for his career before his death, though it was an admirable career. He was, after all, a cameraman, though indisputably a brave one. He has received attention in reliable sources solely because of the circumstances of his death in wartime. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete both per Cullen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.231.58 (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Most of the content seems to be on his death and controversy in its aftermath. That so much has been said about it makes it notable. If we can find material on what he did in his lifetime we could keep it with its presnet title; if not rename to Death of Paul Douglas. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2013 (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 Polytechnic University of the Philippines. The history will remain intact in case anyone wants to merge anything. J04n(talk page) 11:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Polytechnic University of the Philippines Institute of Technology[edit]

Polytechnic University of the Philippines Institute of Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence that this college has individual notability as per Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Sub-articles. Proposing to merge content to Polytechnic University of the Philippines. Xeltran (talk) 08:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unreferenced article on a topic already adequately covered at the Polytechnic University of the Philippines article; no evidence of individual notability. AllyD (talk) 10:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Polytechnic University of the Philippines. Not separately notable. TerriersFan (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2013 (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 Polytechnic University of the Philippines. The history will remain intact in case anyone wants to merge anything. J04n(talk page) 11:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Polytechnic University of the Philippines Graduate School[edit]

Polytechnic University of the Philippines Graduate School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence that this college has individual notability as per Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Sub-articles. Proposing to merge content to Polytechnic University of the Philippines. Xeltran (talk) 08:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Polytechnic University of the Philippines. Not separately notable. TerriersFan (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2013 (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 Polytechnic University of the Philippines. The history will remain intact in case anyone wants to merge anything. J04n(talk page) 11:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Polytechnic University of the Philippines College of Social Sciences and Development[edit]

Polytechnic University of the Philippines College of Social Sciences and Development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence that this college has individual notability as per Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Sub-articles. Proposing to merge content to Polytechnic University of the Philippines. Xeltran (talk) 08:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Polytechnic University of the Philippines. Not separately notable. TerriersFan (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2013 (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 Polytechnic University of the Philippines. The history will remain intact in case anyone wants to merge anything. J04n(talk page) 11:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Polytechnic University of the Philippines College of Science[edit]

Polytechnic University of the Philippines College of Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence that this college has individual notability as per Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Sub-articles. Proposing to merge content to Polytechnic University of the Philippines. Xeltran (talk) 08:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge probably as just one entry in a bullet point list in Polytechnic University of the Philippines; the article says no more than that this college covers bachelor degree courses, which is hardly unusual, and there is no evidence that it has individual notability. AllyD (talk) 10:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Polytechnic University of the Philippines. Not separately notable. TerriersFan (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2013 (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 Polytechnic University of the Philippines. The history will remain intact in case anyone wants to merge anything. J04n(talk page) 11:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Polytechnic University of the Philippines College of Engineering[edit]

Polytechnic University of the Philippines College of Engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence that this college has individual notability as per Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Sub-articles. Proposing to merge content to Polytechnic University of the Philippines. Xeltran (talk) 08:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Polytechnic University of the Philippines. Not separately notable.TerriersFan (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2013 (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 Polytechnic University of the Philippines. The history will remain intact in case anyone wants to merge anything. J04n(talk page) 11:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Polytechnic University of the Philippines College of Computer Management and Information Technology[edit]

Polytechnic University of the Philippines College of Computer Management and Information Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence that this college has individual notability as per Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Sub-articles. Proposing to merge content to Polytechnic University of the Philippines. Xeltran (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Polytechnic University of the Philippines. Not separately notable. TerriersFan (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2013 (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 Polytechnic University of the Philippines. The history will remain intact in case anyone wants to merge anything. J04n(talk page) 11:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Polytechnic University of the Philippines College of Communication[edit]

Polytechnic University of the Philippines College of Communication (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence that this college has individual notability as per Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Sub-articles. Proposing to merge content to Polytechnic University of the Philippines. Xeltran (talk) 08:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Already adequately covered at the Polytechnic University of the Philippines article; no evidence of individual notability of this college. AllyD (talk) 10:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Polytechnic University of the Philippines. Not separately notable. TerriersFan (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2013 (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 Polytechnic University of the Philippines. The history will remain intact in case anyone wants to merge anything. J04n(talk page) 11:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Polytechnic University of the Philippines College of Business Administration[edit]

Polytechnic University of the Philippines College of Business Administration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence that this college has individual notability as per Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Sub-articles. Proposing to merge content to Polytechnic University of the Philippines. Xeltran (talk) 08:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Xeltran (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge probably as just one entry in a bullet point list into Polytechnic University of the Philippines; no evidence that this college has individual notability. AllyD (talk) 10:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Polytechnic University of the Philippines. Not separately notable. TerriersFan (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2013 (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.