< 15 July	17 July >

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. postdlf (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Marc Lawrence/Hugh Grant Comedy[edit]

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

Delete: Film is already in production, but shouldn't we wait until the producers actually come up with a title? Freshh (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Ï¿½ (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That same policy does allow that future events might be written of somewhere, as long as properly sourced. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF. MarnetteD | Talk 20:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Articles can be kept with untitled name, and if it should not keep then redirect it to its Director, better then deletion.-- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 03:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

INCUBATE' as being only slightly TOO SOON. Found a few independent sources speaking of this project: The Wrap (November 2012) speaking toward casting We Got This Covered (November,2012) also speaking toward casting Hollywood Reporter (March 2013) announces more casting and speaks toward April 2013 filming and Indie Wire (April 2013) confirming principle filming as having begun. We almost have WP:NFF met, untitled or not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC) (STRUCK.See below)[reply]
Keep per the notability guidelines for future films since it is verified that filming is already underway. WP:CRYSTAL does not apply here because there is no unverifiable speculation. Instead, we are able to verify the ongoing production of this film. Per the aforementioned notability guidelines, this is an acceptable threshold to maintain a stand-alone article. Coverage of a film's production generally means that there will be coverage of a film's reception; both are tied to who has made the film and/or who is in the film. Considering the director and the star for this film, both with significant bodies of work, I find it highly unlikely that this film will lack in coverage. It would be detrimental to delete this topic. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Eric. Title notwithstanding, WP:NFF is met and more is becoming available almost daily. It serves the project and its readers for this topic to be included and the article about it expanded over time and through regular editing. Thus, I have stricken my incubation consideration above. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:30, 3 July 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, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, wow, a WP:HAMMER on a film is rare. Sources only confirm that it will happen, but nothing seems to have happened yet. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Principal photography has begun, according to this. If there's a lack of coverage since, it doesn't mean anything. It's not the kind of film to have a fan base following every detail of production. Erik (talk | contribs) 04:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as filming is confirmed to have started, so it satisfies the guidelines. Though I must say I recommend it be renamed, unless the current title is officially "Untitled Marc Lawrence/Hugh Grant Comedy." Beerest355 Talk 20:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Forget WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL (both of which would seem to apply). They are not necessary in this case because the subject currently fails WP:GNG. There are no reliable sources cited. The two sources appear to be blogs, along with an external link to IMDB. None of these sites, to my knowledge, qualifies as a reliable source. ‑Scottywong | speak _ 20:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how IndieWire is a blog. Beerest355 Talk 23:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scottywong, there is coverage in the trade papers about this film:

In essence, this is the same kind of film as the previous Lawrence-Grant collaboration, Did You Hear About the Morgans? I am positive that this film will garner the same amount of reception (which is way more than enough for notability purposes). I think it's unnecessary to delete this article only to bring it back again. It's a film in production whose development was noteworthy and whose reception, based on similar trends, will also be noteworthy. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Scotty... a closer will doubtless note Erik's bringing forth multiple accepted reliable sources such as Variety 1 2 3 Hollywood Reporter 1 2 3 and will doubtless note Beerest355's pointing out the quite accepted Indie Wire as acceptable, reliable, and independent, and will doubtless conclude that evidence of multiple available independent sources shows the TOPIC as easily meeting the GNG... a determination which kinda pokes holes in any inadvertant implication by anyone that reliable sources do not exist. Per WP:N, when they DO exist, they need not be citing an article. The policy you cite as reason to delete is one that specifically allows that a future event can be covered within these pages if properly supported by available sources. Let's give three cheers for WP:BEFORE.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...AND point here being that your concern was easy enough to address through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:26, 13 July 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, L Faraone 23:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have expanded the article to be more full-bodied based on the references I mentioned above. The topic meets WP:GNG in having significant coverage about the topic, and it meets WP:NFF because filming is underway. I am not sure why WP:NFF is being cited for deletion if we have verified that filming began. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep per the sources found since I posted. Especially the fact that filming has begun. One question - Would it be preferable to remove Hugh Grant from the title and just leave Marc Lawrence since he is the director? I know that is splitting hairs but most other untitled films I've seen over the years acknowledge the director not the stars of the film. MarnetteD | Talk 15:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with making such a move. Maybe Untitled Marc Lawrence film? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is the one that I would think is proper to use as well. MarnetteD | Talk 15:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided above by User:Erik. Simply put, the topic passes Wikipedia's General notability guideline for an article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:27, 20 July 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 The Royal Tenenbaums. --BDD (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Tenenbaum Family[edit]

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

Non notable characters. Not covered in enough reliable sources, and no sources given. If there's a list of characters it could be redirected to, then that's also an option. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following articles, created by the same author from the same movie.

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding one more to the list:

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

ProtossPylon 23:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Henry Sherman and The Tenenbaum Family to The Royal Tenenbaums as plausible search terms. I already did that to Eli Cash. Delete Pagoda (The Royal Tenenbaums) as a non-plausible dab'ed title without history. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per FreeRangeFrog. Were this AFD not open, I would've been WP:BOLD and done that myself. --71.199.125.210 (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Royal Tenenbaums. Easy call, should have been boldly done rather than hauled to AFD. Carrite (talk) 16:11, 23 July 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. L Faraone 01:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Micro-urban[edit]

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

Per WP:NEO; this is a term of recent coinage of little significance and almost no coverage in reliable sources. Furthermore, WP:NOTPROMOTION: The article history makes it clear this emerged as a vehicle to promote the micro-urban concept developers in Champaign-Urbana began to push about 5 years ago. The bits and pieces of original research as to other places that fit the mold at this point only mask the issue. Most of the sources are minor coverage, consist of advertising copy, or discuss the promotion of the concept in some way. This article was deleted via WP:PROD in May, and recently undeleted. The editor who requested undeletion has added two sources, one of which is an unsigned article at a blog simply defining the word, and the other is a blog entry that merely features the phrase in its title, and not anywhere in the text. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correction Above I say that one of the new sources is an unsigned blog article. I was incorrect. It is signed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. AlmostGrad (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for the comments, Mendaliv. While much of what you note is accurate, I do not believe this page rises to need for deletion. I believe the original coinage of this term was by a community advocate in Champaign-Urbana and not the developers. Yes, the development company used the concept (I'm sure they saw it as worthwhile), but did not originate it as I understand it. The advocate and others have promoted its usage, but since coinage it has seen a minor uptick in usage elsewhere as well. And moreso I see it as a relatively useful urban planning concept, and one that can be further improved. My request for undeletion rests on that, and as such I am working on a complete overhaul of the entry. As you noted, I've only added a couple references as of now, but anticipate doing further editing to improve this entry as I'm able to formulate it. I agree with you that it currently is lacking, but I see potential for a more productive resource here. I'm less interested in the Champaign-Urbana origins than the overall improvement of a seemingly new concept that I, and I believe others, will find useful. WikiWesty (talk) 12 July 2013

Keep. "Micro-urban" might be a relatively new term but is gaining prominence. There are a couple of reliable sources (2 News-Gazette articles) which use this term. I think this stub-level entry should stay. AlmostGrad (talk) 07:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've read those articles. One relates to a few individuals' efforts to promote the use of the term for branding settlements similar to Champaign-Urbana (which promotion is stated to include this Wikipedia article). The other is a mere attestation of the term, and from a notability standpoint, would comprise insignificant coverage. In neither is the term reliably defined. At best you've got an argument for a merge to Champaign-Urbana, though I disagree with such an outcome. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I looked at the Planetizen reference too - it seems to be a reliable source (its Wikipedia entry says it has editorial oversight), and focuses exclusively on the subject of this article. The Futurist also seems to be a reliable source, and the Futurist article also focuses only on this subject. AlmostGrad (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Except the Planetizen article isn't about the term at all: it only uses it once, in the title. Mere attestations are not reliable sources of prominence or significance. The short blurb in The Futurist is essentially a dictionary definition (though fairly nonspecific, and does not appear to be a secondary source for the meaning of the word). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:39, 16 July 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, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 22:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 22:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - because it doesn't really matter who coined the phrase first - for it to be considered notable enough for inclusion here, it needs to have been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and I don't think it has yet. My other concern is that the article is entirely US-centric and this isn't Ameripedia. There are probably a dozen places in the UK that could be described as being "micro-urban" and dozens more in Europe. I can think of at least half-a-dozen in Australia that would meet the criteria. And that's kind of the point - if this were a term in widespread use, it would have been used in relation to a great many more places. At the moment, we don't even have reliable sources describing those places listed in the article as "mirco-urban". That list is simply OR - based on someone's interpretation of the criteria and how it might apply. Most telling of all is the line from the people who claim to have coined the term-

...the term “micro-urban” does not yet appear in the formal lexicon of urban planning or economic development...

Not much more to say about it I'm afraid. Stalwart111 23:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Stalwart and WP:NEO. "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." And it seems like local boosterism. Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would note a couple things. First, if one follows the link through, the complete article the Planetizen summary is describing, on Urban Land Institute's site (link) does indeed use "micro urban" multiple times in the article. It's used in context, is written recently, and expands on the concept usefully. By my count, that makes approximately five sources discussing the concept, which would seem to more than meet the criteria of "coverage in multiple" recent legitimate sources. Second, if there are examples in other countries, we should absolutely list them! Please add those edits. That is exactly why the page is useful. In fact, I most recently arrived at it (and discovered this discussion) with the express purpose of finding further examples. I am unaware of a list of similar such cities elsewhere, pointing to the value found here. And expanding the article accordingly would further add value to the entry. I reiterate my keep recommendation. WikiWesty

Logical Cowboy's note above is probably the best rebuttal for that claim. We need sources that discuss the term (it's genesis, history, meaning and use) not just sources that use the term. A source that simply uses the term (even several times) isn't sufficient. You also missed a word from the front of your quote - "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources". As for listing examples from other countries, you've kind of missed my point - we can't list them because doing so would be original research. We don't have reliable sources that list those places as being "micro-urban" or describe them as such. The list that existed in the article shouldn't have be there. Adding to it would be counter-productive. Stalwart111 04:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the more I look at it, the poorer the sourcing seems. I removed one source which was a Krannert Center reprint of an article written by Mike Ross (Director of said Krannert Center) for the Fox Development Corp. Problem with all of that is that Ross was the fellow who coined the term, according to The News-Gazette, Ross' own local paper. That is it for sourcing related to the subject of this article - the guy who coined the term and his local paper in a story about him. The other two sources (there are three, but the third is a blog) don't talk about the same concept as the article does - they use the term in the context of futuristic micro-settlements and both cite the same quote from the same person in the same way and it has very little to do with the subject of this article. They are ostensibly two different concepts and two people have described them using the same term. The article doesn't cover the second use of the term at all, though it is probably the more notable use of the two (though probably still not notable enough for inclusion here having only been discussed twice and in primary source quote form). Take away the source from Ross himself and this article is supported by a single local newspaper source and even it doesn't discuss the term in detail. Stalwart111 04:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've hit the nail right on the head, Stalwart111: it's two different concepts. Really it shouldn't be a surprise though: it's in the nature of neologisms coined by merely adding an affix to a common root word that someone's already done it before. Arguably, we can't equate these two without running afoul of WP:SYN, and dealing with the two concepts separately, you've got two WP:N/WP:NEO failures. Especially great care should be taken with any of the sources stemming from the Mike Ross coinage as well because of the documented promotional intent behind the original development of this Wikipedia article and much of the local coverage of the term (see this News-Gazette article). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the term "micro-urban" as used in this article and in the sources about futuristic settlements are one and the same - both refer to a rural/semi-urban community with the advantages of a big city alongwith the comforts of living in the countryside. However, there does seem to be another meaning - if you search on Google books, there are many books which refer to something called "micro-urbanism", which often seems to be something at the building/architecture level or something to do with farming or rather than at the community/regional level (I am not entirely sure what the meaning exactly is in that context, since the books use the term but none of the ones I could read online define it precisely). AlmostGrad (talk) 05:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't really the same and if we're going to assert as much in the article (which we don't now; we basically ignore the second definition and claim sources for it substantiate notability for the first) we would need a reliable source that defines it broadly enough to encompass both definitions:

Definition 1 - "Population centers of 250,000 or less that possess a highly uncommon set of desirable attributes normally exclusively associated with much larger metropolitan centers" - Mike Ross/Champaign-Urbana

Definition 2 - "new communities ...that [blur] the traditional boundaries among rural, city, and suburban areas [...] conveniently close to sources of food and energy." - Kotkin/Kiger

The problem is that the second is almost exclusively used in the context of 50-year urban forward-planning and in some instances, a very short list of location examples are given where such communities might develop or are, in the writers opinion, more likely to develop. The first, on the other hand, is used by Ross now to describe existing communities. The first doesn't talk about "new communities" or future planning at all and the second ascribes no population-specific definition as Ross consistently does. I think they quite obviously developed separately, without collaboration of any kind, and remain disparate ideas, despite the common term. And I don't think either is notable. Stalwart111 06:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's also nothing I've seen where Kotkin/Kiger reference Ross or where Ross references Kotkin/Kiger. In fact, the sources we have give distinct attribution for two different ideas to two different people/groups without reference to the other. Of course people coining a term like this (even separately in two different contexts) are always going to be talking about something not entirely dissimilar. But that doesn't mean they are part of the same school of thought or that they were talking about the same thing that is definable enough for us to have an article about it with verification by reliable sources. Stalwart111 06:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am rather confused by all the different uses of the term, so I have added this AfD discussion to Architecture-related deletion discussions and also added a request for expert opinion on WikiProject: Urban studies and planning's talk page. I was wondering if it would be a good idea to keep the article but list all the different meanings in different contexts. AlmostGrad (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with keeping it as a disambiguation type page. Neither meaning independently crosses the notability threshold. We have no source to demonstrate the two are the same. And frankly, even if we did, I still argue that the concept is not notable, fails WP:NEO, and the article itself runs afoul of WP:PROMOTION. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:36, 18 July 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. --BDD (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Max Wrottesley[edit]

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

This actor does not pass WP:ENT and I could not find any significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Gong show 16:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Gong show 16:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage about him. All the sourcing I could find are just essentially credits. -- Whpq (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- looks like a minor bit-part actor, as far as I can tell from the presnet stub article. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:21, 22 July 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. postdlf (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hero syndrome[edit]

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

The syndrome as described in the article has only two references. The first one supports the description of the syndrome in the article; the second reference, and every other easy-to-find internet source, describes "hero syndrome" very differently, as more of a people-pleasing, can't-say-no dynamic. The WP article seems to describe a behavior that somebody mentioned once, which no one else has found interesting enough to talk about since. Everything Else Is Taken (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete I'm seeing the same pattern of a phrase that means something different in every context. What I don't see as any kind of widespread clinical usage of the term as described: it always seems to be the same two or three cases mentioned. If someone can find better scholarly citations I would definitely reconsider, however. Mangoe (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This yearning for recognition and attention is a common motivation for arson - about 7% of cases, according to Hurley and Monahan (1969). This is documented in numerous sources. Warden (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Try adding those "numerous sources" to the article, and I'll be more likely to agree with you. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 13:57, 11 July 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, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - For starters, review articles listed at: Google News Archive search for "Hero syndrome". Per initial online source searches, this topic clearly meets WP:GNG. There appears to be more than enough information in reliable sources to support an article. Google Books source examples include: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:37, 22 July 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. The volume of coverage is indisputable and existed before her death, so even if we ignore the significance of the coverage about her death, it cannot be said that she is only notable because of her death or is only a blip in the news. Deletion arguments are otherwise largely assertions that the subject was not important or did not accomplish anything, but with GNG satisfied the presumption of notability governs and results in "keep" absent a consensus to rebut that presumption. postdlf (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talia Castellano[edit]

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia is not a place for a person who only became notable for her death. Just because her death was announced on a lot of news sites does not make her a notable-enough girl to appear on Wikipedia. Now, there could probably be more news sources on this girl other than about her death that I don't know of, but if there aren't any, this should be covered on Wikinews instead of here. Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty! 21:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note from nominator. I have also request that this page be protected due to some recent vandalism on this page. Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty! 17:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: please provide reasons for your decision and not a simplistic justification like "no consensus". Thank you, WWGB (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Passing WP:GNG should not be sufficient? It would be instead time that those who want the article deleted give a valid reason for deletion, other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Cavarrone 13:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Featured twice on Ellen (TV series), reported on before her death at CBS [7]. Article needs expansion, not deletion. --76.110.201.132 (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So why don't you add the knowledge you got from her TV appearances to the article. Could it be that there wasn't much to it apart from the fact she was dying and had a YouTube page?Williamgeorgefraser (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seconded Same reasons as above. She was also featured in magazines, as stated in the article, and other media prior to her death. --Lilduff90 (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, thirded Everything mentioned above, to me, makes this article notable. ThunderPower (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, fourth Should we remove Terry Fox too? People can be known for anything, actors are "only" known for acting, what's so great about that? I can point to countless people listed on Wikipedia with less information on them than this inspirational girl, and she's made headlines around the world. It would get ugly if she was removed just because some people don't think she's "notable" enough considering there's so many others listed on Wiki that are so unnotable that they don't even get flagged for their one line blip of information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellinnta (talk • contribs)

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

Delete She is described as a "make-up artist". She was a school child. Anyone can have a YouTube channel these days. It does not make one a person of note who should feature in an encyclopedia. Williamgeorgefraser (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your argument word by word, but how it is related with the current case? The article about her was not created in reason of her being a school child or her running a YouTube channel (otherwise speedy_deletion via A7 would apply) but in reason of the coverage she received, during and after her life. We can discuss if it is enough to justify a claim of notability, but clearly she was not a random young girl who run a YouTube channel, I run one but I have not received such coverage nor I was put on the cover of a notable magazine nor I appeared multiple times in a notable show (nor I have the quite impressive number of 39 million views!). Cavarrone 07:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified this in the article and will put it here: CoverGirl is not a magazine. — Wylie pedia 10:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A kid got a little famous on youtube, she dies, so we create an article, I hope not. Nottruelosa (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC) vote struck as editor was indefinitely blocked, and also an offensive rationale here. Nate • (chatter) 03:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lets not set a precedence. Yes over half a million google hits and appeared on the cover of an American magazine but still not notable..--Stemoc (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Precedence" of having article on people who have received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources thus passing WP:GNG as this person easily has, has already be set many years ago. If a person passes WP:GNG base originally on youtube videos, they pass WP:GNG whether anyone likes that fact or not. --Oakshade (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - BIO1E. Biographical articles are designed to be for people who are notable in their own right. Subject is only "famous" due to her cancer (otherwise she'd be a kid with a YouTube channel), and I'd say that "having a YouTube channel" is a stretch. If she was so famous, why did she have to die before an article was created, and why are the only sources obituaries? We seem to have a rash of "somebody died and made the news, let's write a stub" articles as of late, though this has been a pervasive problem on WP for years.MSJapan (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously not a BIO1E and the only sources of the article are not just obituaries. If you care to make a search you will find bunches of articles about her published during her life, and enough material for a good article. Cavarrone 22:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sophie Grace & Rosie were YouTube "sensations", recurred on The Ellen DeGeneres Show and still aren't notable enough to have an article. Neither is this girl. — Wylie pedia 01:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. I have no idea about who Sophie Grace & Rosie are, but not having (yet) an article is not a proof of non-notability for Talia Castellano, nor it means that Sophie Grace & Rosie are not-eligible for an article. It depends how much significant coverage in reliable sources they received, if their status of Internet celebrities is verifiable etc. Cavarrone 06:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO, notability not established, agree with comments above especially Williamgeorgefraser. WWGB (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people fail WP:ANYBIO, you are moving to nominate for deletion Lee Harvey Oswald or Paul Rudd for failing ANYBIO? ANYBIO is an additional criterium for those who fail WP:GNG and are indeed notable in their field. Cavarrone 13:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sad event, but there's not much notability here as these kinds of 'dying child has dreams come true' stories happen regularly. WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Nate • (chatter) 03:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This person was notable before her death, internationally for that matter. [8][9][10][11][12] WP:NOTMEMORIAL doesn't apply as that is for people who did not receive significant coverage from multiple reliable sources as this person has, ie, someone's beloved grandpa. WP:GNG is not about how someone became notable, but if someone is notable. WP:BIO1E clearly states it is for "low profile" individuals which this person was not. --Oakshade (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it doesn't warrant a WP:NOTMEMORIAL, but the only reason she was given so much "media coverage" was not because of her achievements but because of her "disease", hate to agree with the banned trolled whose vote was struck off but the fact of the matter is, had she not being sick, she would not have gotten any media coverage, there are 100's of people her age on youtube adn some with similar problems and as i said earlier, lets not set a precedence, we don't want people using this article as an example to add similar articles in the future. She is notable to a smaller degree as as semi important internet celebrity but honestly, just not at a degree where we can say she deserves to be listed on wikipedia.--Stemoc (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to like the reasons she became notable, but she became notable per WP:NOTABILITY and WP:GNG nonetheless. --Oakshade (talk) 04:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If we are going to start removing Wikipedia pages solely because the person became famous because of their death, explain having a page for Ronald Goldman. If a person shouldn't have a page because they became famous for being terminally ill, maybe someone should flag Ryan White's for deletion. And is Perez Hilton famous for anything besides running a celebrity gossip blog? All three of those people have Wikipedia pages. Maybe I see this from a different perspective, as a heavy participant in Relay For Life, but I saw just how much impact Talia had upon cancer survivors. She really and truly was an inspiration for so many fighting the disease. To try to dismiss her as a "YouTube star", or as someone famous for their illness or death, truly diminishes what she did during her all-too-brief time on Earth, and what she meant to a lot of people. Keep the page - both because it's the right thing to do, and to remove it would create a real double-standard. IngridsLittleAngel (talk) 04:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— IngridsLittleAngel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 05:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ditto for above. Thinking of deleting it for the above reasons is just sad and deplorable. What is this world coming to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.206.225.252 (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— 205.206.225.252 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 05:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan White was the poster child for HIV/AIDS, a disease which to this day remains incurable, Ronald Goldman on his own is not notable but he is linked to one of the biggest trials in history. Perez was an average blogger once but his popularity grew and as such became notable enough for inclusion in time..I'm not sure how appearing in magazines and talking about your illness is actually "doing something"?. There was this Tongan girl with a similar problem, Tae Kami, she also had cancer, she wanted to be a singer and she was diagnosed with a rare cancer of the jaw, after her death her family set up a "Walk on Walk Strong" foundation (a song she wrote and sang) to raise money for other cancer patients in the Pacific Region and even she is not notable enough for inclusion on wikipedia. I'm just giving an example...notability requirements are such on wikipedia. This isn't a "popularity contest" so its probably not a wise idea to get other people to come here from probably facebook and fight her articles' inclusion on wikipedia... Wikipedia generally accepts only opinions from actual members, if you want to be part of wikipedia and comment here, create an account.--Stemoc (talk) 04:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though, I thought this discussion was about the page, and not me. But, pleased now? IngridsLittleAngel (talk) 04:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She passed WP:GNG and WP:ENT even before her death, as the same sources of the article (plus the coverage listed above) show. Defining her as "a person who only became notable for her death" is misleading. Cavarrone 05:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep News of her death has appeared in the New York Daily News, Los Angeles Times, NPR, The Huffington Post, Enterainment Weekly, ABC News CBS News, and over 100 other news sites. All cited more than just her death. During her lifetime, stories about her appeared on many of these sites, and on others. If all of these news sources considered her notable enough to run stories while she was alive and of her death, how can we declare that she isn't notable?Tom Barrister 06:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombarrister (talk • contribs)
- Comment on this argument from nominator. Okay, well could you at least list all these sources you found? Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty! 16:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The argument behind the individual only being notable because of their death, is absolutely repugnant. As sources have demonstrated, the individual passes WP:GNG and WP:ENT; as articles have detailed her past, and in particular 'internet personality' status. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 06:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has received internation press coverage. --Racklever (talk) 06:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on this argument from nominator. Okay, well, could you put what "internation[al] press coverage" you found instead of just saying he has it? EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 16:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - A two second search, comes up with coverage from the United Kingdom, even Australia. Her appearances on Ellen, suffice the term "international" considering that the show is shown globally. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 23:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Belgium, Germany, The Netherlands, Switzerland, Chili, Peru, All during her lifetime, about diffrent things, like plans to start a new clothing-line with upcoming fashion star Urbana Chappa, but also about things like going to hospital etc. Rutger Colin Kips, the Netherlands37.251.15.236 (talk) 00:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait We went through this last year with Ben Breedlove - this is simply not a good time to be discussing deletion. Give the coverage time to play out and we'll see whether the article meets GNG in a year or so. There's no way to reach any kind of consensus right now. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 07:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fence I understand what both sides are saying, but I am torn both ways. On the one hand, we support articles for such things as the List of Playboy Playmates of the Month (and this is not a moral argument I am making). Most of those models (and I am not saying all) will only end up in their life as famous for that one thing that may or may not be beyond their control. And every single one of them have an article. And yet here is a person who appears on the cover of an equally famous magazine CoverGirl who instead of having looks has cancer. That is a tough double standard to enforce. My concern is that the notoriety is fleeting, but by that same standard, arent the Bunnys? I dont know. Will think about it for a bit.Sunnydoo (talk) 07:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is Keep, Keep and Keep. I repeated myself because #1. She is obviously notorious when her death was covered on every news program in the USA, and #2, I am the Naseem Hamed of Wikipedia. Antonio Seem the Prince Martin, Loser's talk 08;18, 17 July, 2013 (UTC)

Keep Article need expansion, not deletion. If subject is memetized i(2011, http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/people/talia-joy) it's definitely worth article. Serg3d2 (talk) 10:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait/Keep I agree with User:Bienfuxia. This discussion is a bit early to have.

tausif(talk) 12:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Talia was a girl who inspired thousands of people (not in the least very young people like herself) to keep a positive outlook on their lives despite the their own sorrows (whatever they may be). I am a cancer-patient myself, living half way across the globe from Talia, and I will be eternally grateful to have seen (and be inspired by) the limitless positivity of Talia. In this manner this girl has undoubtedly helped many (young) people around the globe cope with their own (terminal) illnesses in a positive way.

Now some of you may say that if she touched thousands of people their hearts, that does not constitute a lot of notability. I would like to ask those people how many hearts one is supposed to touch in order to be?? To reach so many people worldwide in only thirteen years is an accomplishment many a world-famous star won't be able to better!

I sincerely hope that Talia will be allowed to keep inspiring young people, and that wikimedia will continue to offer this article as a portal into Talia's unlimited love and strength!

Therefore: expand, not delete!

Rutger Colin Kips, the Netherlands37.251.15.236 (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— 37.251.15.236 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- Comment on this argument from nominator. Okay. Thanks for letting us know that she was a very important person to a lot of people, but could you still focus on the notability with independent sources please, instead of saying a WP:ILIKEIT arguemnt? Thank you. EditorEat ma talk page up, scotty! 16:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I added a few international mainstream news sources above, where you asked for them, this was all during lifetime. Her death gets reported at least in all of the countries mentioned there, as well as in most other European and Latin-American countries. Rutger Colin Kips, The Netherlands 37.251.15.236 (talk) 00:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Known celebrity who has appeared on national talk shows. We have other precedents mentioned in this deletion discussion. Article needs some serious work. --Zerbey (talk) 15:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In spite of all the arguments about keeping this article, I don't see many or any of the "Keep" brigade adding anything of note about her life. Rather than argue against deletion, surely it is better to turn the article into one that people want to read. However, for the moment, it is still a stub and will forever more remain one.Williamgeorgefraser (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sad story, but not notable. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just "not notable"? Care to explain how someone who has received significant in-depth coverage in both life and death, thus passing WP:NOTABILITY is "not notable"? --Oakshade (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notable for what?, being ill and appearing on Ellen? 100's of less important people have appeared on her show, should we start making articles for all of them? media also "magnifies" children who have died either via abuse or murder, we don't go around creating articles for them, if this was some 40 year old woman who had died of cancer, would anyone have cared enough to make her an article?...Lets not let our emotions get the better, she doesn't merit notability--Stemoc (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - even though this is a 100% "americanized" story of the poor cute girl that dies of cancer.. i guess she is notable as her death has been mentioned on all big news media.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Media will carry news on people who have died if they have appeared on some know tv show, How many of these "media" carried news on her BEFORE her interview on Ellen? No media wants to be the LAST one to report on a news, no matter how small the news is...--Stemoc (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several of these "media" carried news on her BEFORE her interview on Ellen.[13][14][15]. Even if the coverage was after, she still passes WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 01:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes, maybe thats how Ellen knew of her and brought her to her show...and since CoverGirl isn't an actual magazine (i always thought it was) which means that her only form of notability is her youtube vids which led to the media tagging her as "notable" enough for making the news, but then not everything that makes news is deemed notable for inclusion here..again as i said originally, we don not want to set a precedence...lets just stick to the notability criteria cause every moment this seem to be heading towards the WP:NOTMEMORIAL than WP:NOTABILITY policy..--Stemoc (talk) 01:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stemoc , you're now shifting on what kind of coverage you deem as suitable for inclusion after being shown the coverage you were asking for, so it's getting kind of hard to respond to you. If by "precedence" you mean articles about people who have received significant in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources, whether it be from youtube videos or anything else, as this person has, then "precedence" has already been set long ago. If you'd like to change WP:GNG, you need to make your case on its talk page, not try to change "precedence" set many years ago in a single AfD.--Oakshade (talk) 01:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No one had considered Talia encyclopedic enough to create an article about her until she died. Therefore, the article about Talia was clearly created as a response to her death. While her death is undeniably sad, there is nothing particularly newsworthy about the way that she died. So, if she wasn't noteworthy enough to have an article in life, and there was nothing uniquely noteworthy about the fashion in which she died, she doesn't warrant an article because she passed away. As stated previously, this is an encyclopedia, not a memorial. 64.201.173.145 (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very silly argument. At minimum 10% of biographies, I bet, are created shorty later a person is dead, and I myself have created dozens of articles about people a few hours after they died (eg. Pierre Sadek, Luciano Lutring, Teresa Mattei, Regina Bianchi...). The timing of creation of this article is very common and obviously unrelated with the notability of a subject. Cavarrone 21:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the article was created before her death [16] and speedy deleted because a single user felt it didn't indicate importance. But everything Carvarrone stated is correct. The previous lack of article creation has absolutely nothing to do with the notability of the person. There's a great amount of significant coverage on this person that can be the source of content way beyond a stub. --Oakshade (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Talia inspired thousands, and was famous before her death. What's the problem with having a page about her? It's not like her page takes up space on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.89.240 (talk • contribs)

— 68.46.89.240 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

In principle, I actually agree with you here. However, this rationale doesn't mesh with Wikipedia policy. 64.201.173.145 (talk) 22:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proof* Here's some proof of extensive coverage. Note the LA Times, ABC News, US Magazine, Huffington Post, NY Daily News, People Magazine, The Washington Post, United Press International (there were also AP articles), and Parade Magazine, among others.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/gossip/la-et-mg-talia-castellano-dead-dies-ellen-degeneres-20130716,0,6714954.story http://abcnews.go.com/US/talia-castellano-ellen-degeneres-cover-girl-dead-13/story?id=19685470#.Uedg3421Elg http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/ellen-degeneres-remembers-talia-castellano-shares-tribute-to-13-year-old-covergirl-2013177 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/talia-castellano http://www.curesearch.org/Talia-Castellano/ http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/youtube-star-talia-dies-cancer-article-1.1400328 http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20718161,00.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style-blog/wp/2013/07/17/talia-castellano-youtube-makeup-star-dies-at-13/ http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/07/16/Cancer-stricken-teen-Talia-Castellano-dies-at-13/UPI-68861374008444/ http://www.parade.com/54655/hannah_dreyfus/covergirl-tali-castellano-claimed-by-cancer/ http://www.inquisitr.com/854009/talia-castellano-dies-at-13-social-web-and-celebs-pay-tribute/ Articles that were published before her death: http://www.today.com/id/49462293/ns/today-today_style/t/terminal-cancer-patient-becomes-honorary-covergirl/#.Uedheo21Elg http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2314953/Teenage-girl-Talia-Joy-Castellano-terminal-cancer-fulfills-dream-launching-fashion-line.html http://www.thefrisky.com/2013-05-23/frisky-qa-teen-designer-talia-castellano-is-fighting-cancer-with-fashion/ http://www.refinery29.com/talia-castellano http://www.fashionmingle.net/taliacastellano/ http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/talia-castellano-in-new-zealand http://jezebel.com/5932699/12+year+old-cancer-patients-makeup-tutorials-are-the-best-thing-on-the-internet-right-now http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/meet-talia-castellano-worlds-most-inspiring-covergirl-144467 http://www.womenyoushouldknow.net/are-you-braver-than-a-12-year-old-probably-not-this-one/ http://pinterest.com/taliajoy18/ http://thebeautyentrepreneur.com/talia-joy-castellano-the-inspiring-13year-old-mua-fashion-guru/ Some of the above pre-death articles may not be household names for websites, but they show the extent to which the Castellano inspired and motivated others. Also, note that she started her own fashion line, and was the guest at numerous venues because of this and her expertise at cosmetics. If you need more proof, I can find another hundred or two news stories and website articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombarrister (talk • contribs) 03:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be nice if everyone voting 'keep' could actually do something to improve the actual article, which is still just a stub, even after all these references have been listed. Articles survive fundamentally because people make them worth keeping - notability is just a start. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is protected.Tom Barrister 06:01, 18 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombarrister (talk • contribs)

No, it is only semi-protected, although that does stop all the SPAs voting here from editing the article. WWGB (talk) 06:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As it is the second time I read the same thing, it is worth remembering that "AFD is not cleanup", in AfDs we don't judge the length of articles, and everyone regardless of whether he/she voted keep, delete or abstained is welcome to improve the article. There is no rule against stubs: Wikipedia has no deadline, if there is notability, better a stub than nothing and at least 80% WP articles are stubs (and at least 80% of the other articles started as stubs). Stubs are perfectly acceptable except they are somehow harmful in their current state. Finally, however, it should be noted how the article was largely improved in just one day [17], expecting it will become a featured article in a few days is a bit too much. Cavarrone 07:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I'm not expecting it to get up to featured article status, as stated above I hope we can return to assess notability when the media spotlight has moved on. If at that point the article is well-written and properly referenced voters here will naturally be better-disposed towards it (especially as with this kind of fame the concept of notability is at its most subjective.) Yes, these are the rules, and yes, I'm aware that, as you say, "AFD is not cleanup" but in reality it often ends up working this way, and if we can get a good article out of the process it would be nice. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 07:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I second your feelings that "a good article out of the process it would be nice" but, really, this has nothing to do with the AfD process. As you can see in the template above, "AfD is not a vote" and the concept of notability is not subjective (even if many keep and delete votes above are absolutely subjective) but absolutely objective, it is based on a general notability guideline and on several additional guidelines. For the same reason I don't understand what it changes in assessing notability "when the media spotlight has moved on" as notability is not temporary, once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. Cavarrone 07:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course AfD isn't a vote, but as you can see there's not much chance of having a reasonable debate on this while it's receiving so much attention. Inevitably this will roll around as 'no consensus' next week - there's no way of disentagling what is/is not a reasonable argument from the above. Notability is not temporary, but that's beside the point, notability is simply not going to be determined here in this discussion. This has nothing to do with guidelines and everything to do with practicality. As for 'absolutely objective' - well, of course it should be, but once again, in reality some topics are easier to lay down rules for than others. This is one of the trickier ones. You tell me which sections of this apply here, and I'm sure we'll find other people with different views popping up straight away. 阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (talk) 10:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying, and I sympathize with the admin who will take the weight of reading all this extremely long and somewhere confused discussion, but I don't see the matter as very complex: once an extensive significant coverage in reliable sources in accordance with the general notability guideline was offered here and even included in the main article the concerns by the nominator about the notability of the subject (or about the limited duration of the coverage) were already addressed. Once WP:GNG is met and demonstrated, a subject does not require to meet any other SnG. If it was a vote it was maybe a no consensus, but weighting the arguments I don't see any valid deletion concern survived. Given that actually is clear that the subject received extensive coverage in reliable, independent sources during her life and after her death, right now on what basis is still asked the deletion of the article? Cavarrone 10:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cavarrone, you are correct in your assessment. However, as most of the news reports are obituaries repeating the exact same information, it's neither significant nor extensive. It's already been shown someone misinterpreted the nature of the CoverGirl source. I'm pretty sure the media is over her now, and there likely won't be any coverage. We seem to have an issue of sources existing as web addresses, but no one is actually reading the sources, meaning that the existence of sources rather than their quality is the benchmark for notability. That is not what the policy says, however. Also, "notability is not temporary" does say a lot about the length of time of coverage, and if it's all within the span of a week, that makes a huge difference. MSJapan (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MSJapan, all within the span of a week?! Seriously, take a look at the sources currently included in the article, as well as at the many sources listed above, then if you are not yet satisfied make a little search on Google... we have literally hundreds of news articles about her long before the last week... and I prey you to read what means ""Significant coverage", it means that "sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". Obviously obituaries are significant coverage. About " the quality" of the sources, I see among the sources currently used in the article Los Angeles Times, Orlando Sentinel, The Miami Herald, ABC News, The Huffington Post, People, International Business Times so I'd say the quality is excellent. Cavarrone 17:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETE - While it's not nice to speak ill of the dead, this person is not relevant or encyclopaedic. Just because someone dies and has a sad story that media types (i.e. Ellen) exploit for ratings, is not someone "worthy of notice." Getting on TV and dying of cancer is not an accomplishment, and it is likely that 10 years from now no one but her parents will remember her. We all pass and are forgotten, it doesn't make us unique. WP:PEOPLE requires that the topic of a bio article be "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." Sadly, I do not believe this "flash in the pan" sob story meets the bare minimum. Notability not sufficiently established, delete per WP:PEOPLE, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:ANYBIO. Great candidate for a speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is is this person easily passing WP:PEOPLE and its WP:GNG by receiving received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (well before her death) not passing WP:PEOPLE? Your personal WP:IDONTLIKEIT opinion that she is not "significant, interesting, or unusual" to you is noted, but that has nothing do do with the significant coverage this person has received. Throwing up WP:NOTMEMORIAL is nonsensical as this person received an incredible amount of significant coverage around the world before her death, not to mention WP:NOTMEMORIAL is meant for those who have not received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources as this person has. If you're going to be convincing, you need to provide evidence as to why this person doesn't pass our guidelines instead of simply naming those guidelines. --Oakshade (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably ColonelHenry missed that the basic criterium of WP:PEOPLE that says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"... About CSD, I invite him to be bold and put the CSD#A7 tag in the article, when the tag will be removed in minutes by an admin he will maybe realize how absurd was his argument and how poor is his understanding of our policies... Cavarrone 21:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Cavarrone, I voted based on how I interpret the clear policies...that's not an invitation for your cathartic need to browbeat me to change my mind or try to canvas me just because I happen to disagree (along with others who support deleting this useless, non-notable article). 10 years from now her parents are the only people who will remember her name. Too bad. She should have done something like cure cancer instead of being a sideshow on Ellen and YouTube. Doh! This article inspires a collective "so what?" and is about as notable as some paedophile cornered on DatelineNBC. --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry colonel, both me and Oakshade only tried to explain you why your arguments are technically inaccurate and fallacious, but you keep on repeating more and more that in ten years noone will remember the subject of the article, ok, this is just your questionable personal opinion but has nothing to do with our remarks nor it is a decent argument for keeping/deleting an article. We have articles for people who are notable for having played a half dozen of matches in a professional soccer league, notable for appearing in some pornographic movies, notable for being the member of a royal family or notable for appearing in silly MTV reality shows, so yes, we can also have articles about an internet celebrity who died of cancer at young age. Cavarrone 23:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ColonelHenry, if by "interpret" you mean completely ignoring our clear policies, then yes, that's what you're doing. You're failing to explain how this person has not been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. All you're doing is throwing out pure personal WP:CRYSTAL speculation that has zero to do with our WP:PEOPLE and WP:GNG guidelines and adding strange WP:IDONTLIKEIT ("She should have done something like cure cancer") conjecture, which thankfully our notability guidelines have never valued.--Oakshade (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Close call but support Cavarrone's rationale. Quis separabit? 22:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per User:Cavarrone and others, but even without their arguments, evident plentiful coverage around Europe (Daily Mail UK article etc) for CoverGirl model ads says passes WP:GNG. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In the movie "Thank You for Smoking" we meet Cancer Boy, who is a parody of a young victim of cancer. Funny, isn't it? Not anymore. Talia Castellano is a real Cancer Girl who touched millions of people, and made childhood cancer less of a joke. Her influence on the societal perception of of cancer in general is truly notable. She stands out among the many tragic (and familiar) stories, demonstrating something that reaches far beyond the sadness. I can't describe it adequately, but I hope someone else can. This little girl is more than a cancer victim; she was a philosopher and a teacher. She will be remembered by hundreds of thousands. Her story is unique. 69.181.231.62 (talk) 06:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— 69.181.231.62 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 07:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Total nonsense. She was neither a teacher nor a philosopher; she was a schoolgirl. Is her story unique? No! She is one of many millions of children who have died. She is not the first child with an incurable disease to have appeared on TV or the Internet. As for the rest of what you write, it is pure sentimentality and speculation and has no place on a serious encyclopedia. Williamgeorgefraser (talk) 12:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Both your arguments read like WP:ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT. Notability depends from reliable secondary sources, a rule that both of you are plain and simple ignoring. The IP is at least justified of not being an active user of the website. Cavarrone 15:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The implication that a 13 year old can neither teach nor philosophize is absurd. Nor is her death from cancer the sole reason that the article is justified.Tom Barrister 19:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Adding to the article. I am sure that all of those who, like myself, want the article deleted would be delighted if all of the "keep" brigade spent more time adding information to the article instead of trying to bring tears to our eyes. If she was such a unique and wonderful figure with so many magazine articles and TV appearances to her name, who was a philosopher and a teacher and had a YouTube channel, then it is to your eternal shame that the article remains a stub. Do something about the poverty of the page and you might get a bit more support from the rest of us. If you had written half as much fact about her as the speculative nonsense you have collectively written, there would be a full article and we would not be having this discussion. Williamgeorgefraser (talk) 14:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, how many times do you want to say that the article is a stub? Sure it is still a stub, but surely it was largerly improved by the time of the nomination, as now include sources like Los Angeles Times, Orlando Sentinel, The Miami Herald, ABC News, The Huffington Post, People, International Business Times, enough to demonstrate that the subject passes the notability bar. It respect the two rules that really make any sense when building an encyclopedia: it summarizes the key points of the subject's biography and contains a good number of reliable sources to verify them. Is it not enough for you? Instead of complaining day by day, take a a handful of the sources listed above by User:Tombarrister, User:Oakshade and others, read them and expand the article by yourself. Cavarrone 15:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I only said once that it is a stub. You are the one trying to turn her into a heroic figure, not me, so you supply the facts. You, also, already know that newspaper and magazine articles do not always relate facts, merely the points a journalist wants to put across to get a good pay cheque. Which begs the question why you have so much interest in pushing articles with Italian names? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamgeorgefraser (talk • contribs) 16:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once? Fortunately words remain and people could still read your previous complaint about "a stub that will forever more remain one" and about keep voters that should improve it instead of discussing here. Am I trying to turn her into a heroic figure? Hilarious accusations... I merely said that she patiently passes the requirements of WP:GNG. I am just trying to apply and live with our guidelines, nothing more, nothing less. On the contrary in your arguments you are simply ignoring any guideline and also pushing your negative bias against journalism. Frankly, if you don't accept magazine and newspaper articles as reliable sources you are in the wrong site. Am I "pushing" articles with "Italian names"? Laughable... now provide evidences of my bad faith. I have no bias. I'm Italian so I have some interest and even some competence on several Italian topics, but you can easily check that I voted for deletion or even nominated for deletion ([18], [19]) several articles about Italian subjects, not less or not more than in the other AfD discussions I participate. Cavarrone 18:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: This has gone beyond a discussion about an article for deletion and turned into a Guild Wars match. Apparently, somebody has a wild hair about getting this deleted. As for me, I'm not spending a few hours of my time to improve this article, only to find out that it's been yanked, because the obsessed person managed to fool/convince an editor/admin to removing it. If it stays, I'll do what I can to improve it.Tom Barrister 19:43, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

COMMENT SECONDED: This really has become a flame war. Williamgeorgefraser seems to think that Talia Castellano isn't dead enough, whilst he accuses Cavarrone of "pushing articles with Italian names" -- Whoa. Ok, stop throwing sand boys. Tom Barrister makes an excellent point about just letting the article be a stub for now; it's a pretty good stub. When the smoke clears and the dust settles, many of us will come forward and expand the article. Please keep in mind that only a few of us (probably not me) are qualified to do this kind of work, and if done well can be rather time consuming. In the absence of a qualified author, a less qualified author (probably me) will certainly step up. 69.181.231.62 (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

— 69.181.231.62 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 00:17, 22 July 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. postdlf (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harley Pasternak[edit]

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

Advertisement. Seems to fail WP:GNG too, as most Google links I have checked were about his clients or his work, but not about him. The Banner talk 21:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the article is a PROMO, but he published 3 diet books. EBY (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is a terrible puff piece, but his hosting of ABC's The Revolution alone seals his notability. Cull the 'he's worked with these famous people and sells this stuff' fat and bring it down to a basic 'career, list of books written and filmography' article and this should be fine. Nate • (chatter) 03:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update I have culled down the article to the basics, though I'd like to see that client list cut down a bit more than it is right now. Nate • (chatter) 20:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Women's Health, She Knows, Shape, Reader's Digest, and many more. SL93 (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- He has his own Nintendo video game. SL93 (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are allowed to rewrite the article. But at this moment I still suggest WP:TNT. The Banner talk 00:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Cleanup is not the purpose of AfD as notability has been shown. Now it is a misuse of AfD. SL93 (talk) 00:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - How to protect the spammer, lesson 14. Sorry, but this type of nonsense always makes my cynical. An advert is an advert, not an article fitting in an encyclopaedia. I still suggest removal of this advert. The Banner talk 01:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, but I'm not concerned as I know how such things go in AfD. You have no proof that spamming was meant anyway despite how the article looks. SL93 (talk) 01:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be rude to the original creator who did not spam. SL93 (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In addition to the sources presented above by User:SL93, upon review of more (e.g. [20]), this subject passes WP:BASIC. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:43, 20 July 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. postdlf (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antavius Weems[edit]

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

resume/promo. It's only cite is the subject's own website. Non-notable: I did do some weeding and attempted to find RS, but ~~couldn't find any~~ found a blog interview. DePROD EBY (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 29 June 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, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:42, 5 July 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, Dusti^*poke* 03:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, only one reference, mostly original research, non-notable. – Recollected • 22:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A blatant case of self promotion, not a independent source in sight. Finnegas (talk) 14:58, 17 July 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. --BDD (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa davis[edit]

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

I do not think that this chap meets WP:PROF as regards his medical career. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, on second views, the article is by user:Mudavis, who potentially has massive WP:COI issues (i.e. he is Mustafa Davis) and finally he can't even capitalise his name correctly. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - couldn't find a single RS. The capitalization thing could have been forgiven. Or not. EBY (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedy A7 as there is no assertion of notability, just a career CV. Man-with-a-job, not biographically notable. AllyD (talk) 05:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 18 July 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. Sandstein 06:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marian Green[edit]

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

Subject fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Sources do not establish notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Completed incomplete nom. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found an article here. It seems she has done a lot of work in her field, but did anyone notice? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:40, 9 July 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, czar · · 20:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A relist only 2 days after its first listing? Anyway, I had added a couple of book references, obtained via Questia. Her appearance in books in her field could indicate a Keep, but I'm just not sure how far they exceed passing mention. AllyD (talk) 05:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mentioned in several survey works on modern paganism and witchcraft, cited as an authority, specifically characterised in an article in a scholarly survey as having written much used books, founded influential publication and organisations. Passes GNG. I've added further material found online and will see if I can find more offline. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC) - Now that I've examined sources offline, make that prominently mentioned in 4 works on modern paganism published by a range of academic presses, the most extensive coverage being in the Luhrmann book, which was already cited but only for a small point. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:03, 16 July 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, Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:55, 16 July 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. postdlf (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quinn DNA Project[edit]

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

Non-notable surname DNA project. One of thousands (7,541) currently hosted by Family Tree DNA. No third-party references cover the project. Googling it just turns up a few adverts and comments in message-boards and genealogy-related webpages. Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - it seems to be a PROMO for the Quinns involved. EBY (talk) 21:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - OR, non-notable, no RS. Agricolae (talk) 23:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 as an organization that does not make a claim of importance or significance. It was already tagged and declined once, on the basis that it's not really an organization, but I think that was just a mistake; it's either an organization or a web site and both kinds of thing are subject to A7 speedy deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:00, 19 July 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. --BDD (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charity Gaye Finnestad[edit]

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

Non-notable author. The bulk of the coverage I've found is blogs and other fluff sites. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Lugia2453 (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added sources to the page. She is a notable author with several thousand fans. Goldberg McDuffie (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2013 (EST)

Delete per nom. Any claim to notability would be for the book, rather than the author, and the references provided thus far are press releases. 76.248.144.216 (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question I'm curious as to why the time stamp for Goldberg McDuffie's comment above predates this AfD discussion. 76.248.144.216 (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answer The time zone is different. Goldberg McDuffie (Goldberg McDuffie 15:54, 16 July 2013 (EST)

I believe the book to be notable, however if you think more references are needed, please let me know what you'd like and I will supply. Goldberg McDuffie (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2013 (EST)
Delete The book is not even in worldCat, and is apparently self-published. I would probably have deleted this as speedy a7 because a self published book is not a credible claim to importance. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: First, if DGG is supporting deletion, that's a strong reason for anyone too. As an experienced librarian, his given evidence for non-notability, as it is for any book-related AfD where he votes delete, is solid and impossible to argue with.
Second, I am about to block Goldberg McDuffie anyway for a username-policy violation, which almost always means a delete vote for me in any ongoing related AfD. Sorry, I know you meant well, but unfortunately you just wasted your client's time. Daniel Case (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and arguments outlined above. Finnegas (talk) 14:03, 22 July 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. Discussion appears to be without a clear consensus and withdrawn by the nominator. L Faraone 01:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MyScienceWork[edit]

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

I became aware of this article because of an edit request at List of social networking websites, but I am concerned that it doesn't pass WP:WEB, and is therefore not eligible for inclusion in that list. Of the references in the article, I think that only this one and this one (Google translations from French) have a chance of passing WP:RS, and I don't think that they are enough to prove notability by themselves. I couldn't find any other sources online. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I, too, came across this article in the same way, which is why it was on my watchlist. I also went through the sources cited in the article and found them lacking. Even the two cited by Mr. Stradivarius are not major sources, and the second one is a tiny puff piece. The only reason I didn't nominate the article for deletion is, unlike Mr. S, I did not do any WP:BEFORE. Although technically it does not affect notability, the article was created by the owner of the website and they have promoted their website in other Wikipedia articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I believe that references 3 & 4 are reliable independent sources. None of the other sources are reliable & independent. However just two suitable sources isn't compelling evidence. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Agreed this is borderline. Perhaps a case of being too soon? Just self-asserting a zillion members is pure promotion, but the wording is not as bad as some. Sources in French certainly would count if there were enough of them. Needs work on citation format, sections, removing the wikilnik from external section, etc. Perhaps User talk:Estalere could userify it while being worked on? Then move it into main space when notability was easier to demonstrate. W Nowicki (talk) 16:53, 13 July 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, postdlf (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If you strip out the advertising and all the first-party sources, you basically have two sources and a sub-stub. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 20:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Estalere has added some more sources to the article, including this from Le Parisien and this from 01net. I think that these are just enough to satisfy WP:GNG, and so I would like to withdraw my nomination. I won't actually close this myself, though, as some others have already suggested that the article be deleted. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:39, 23 July 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. L Faraone 23:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All Bay Music Magazine[edit]

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

Non-notable magazine, sources are not reliable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Everything I can find about this is self-published. Impossible to determine notability or secondary coverage. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The article is respecting Wikipedia guidelines including the existence of secondary sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan115 (talk • contribs)

How? What secondary sources are there? A personal blog is not a reliable source, neither is an iTunes listing. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - found 4 issues of online magazine, no RS of notability. EBY (talk) 21:37, 16 July 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, postdlf (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not come close to meeting WP:WEBCRIT, the criteria for website inclusion, for reasons already noted above. -Wine Guy~Talk 22:14, 16 July 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 Withdrawn, per WP:HEY. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Town Range[edit]

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

Not a notable road. The only "reference" in the article is a directory entry for the address of a building on that road. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks a pretty central street on google maps, and seems to have been one of the central roads with barracks during the British earlier period, probably more notable than Flat Bastion Road. A few hits in google books. I'm sure there'll be an argument against this one and arguments that the street doesn't have "extensive coverage" but in my opinion it just scrapes by, and I'm pretty sure you'd find more in newspapers on it.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not only a central street, it's a very important one - one of the three main streets of the city up to the end of the 19th century. I think it more than scrapes by; there are quite a few sources just on Google, and I know that at least one local has covered it in detail. I'll see if I can get some more info from the author, since I know how to contact him. The article has now been greatly expanded with a lot more info from my own resources on- and offline. Prioryman (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Formerly the area of a barracks, now home to AquaGib, BetVictor, Rock on the Rock Club and also featuring an exit to the Office of the Chief Minister of Gibraltar. The article is well referenced and a vital part of Gibraltar's history. Tonyevans gi (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:DISRUPTPOINT Agathoclea (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to Drmies, I don't think he was trying to be disruptive; it was a very stubby stub when he nominated it. I might well have voted in favour of deletion if I hadn't been there myself and knew that its importance wasn't reflected in the article as it was at the time of nomination. Hopefully the recent expansion will make the case for keeping it. Prioryman (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was stubby, but I don't think you or few others would have voted in favour of deletion after my own expansion, even before you added more. I asserted that is was within guidelines, even if you were there or not..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the history it's evident that you (and I) have expanded it after he nommed it. I'd say it's a classic example of an AfD nomination spurring major improvements, so it's all good in the end. Prioryman (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and you proved that by no means does google books contain the sum of the world's information, I was amazed that you had access to that material which didn't pick up in a google book search. Makes you wonder just how many similar topics could be written about on here which have more sources than meets the eye..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prioryman, if it had looked like this before I wouldn't have nominated it. Thanks to you and your evil doctor for the improvement, and the note on my talk page. As for Agathoclea's comment--eh, what the fuck? That's very bad manners. Now, be a good admin and close this AfD as withdrawn; you have my permission, even though you don't seem very neutral. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 17 July 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.

Rachel D. Vancelette[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. L Faraone 01:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D'Orazio[edit]

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

While he barely meets WP:NHOCKEY by being a a First All Star team member in Canadian college hockey. He fails WP:GNG in that there are no in depth references that are more than passing mentions. DJSasso (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They only technically, and barely, meet NHOCKEY because of poor wording within the SNG. The CIS is pretty much the last stop for most hockey careers and very few players who play Canadian college/university go on to become notable. A major NCAA award winner may have a decent claim, but in this case, the SNG is flawed. I cant find much in the way of non-routine coverage, and what I can is in the form of blogs. Fails WP:GNG. Reso lute 15:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep – Specifically meets criteria #4 of WP:NHOCKEY as a major collegiate hockey league First-Team all-star. More than just being a conference all-star, this athlete was named to the CIS All-Canadian First Team as the nation-wide best university player at his position. And yes, he also meets GNG with independent, reliable and significate coverage including [21] [22][23][24][25][26][27] Appears to be a bad faith nomination in retaliation for my comments in disagreement with the nominator here. Dolovis (talk) 16:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not retaliatory at the least. Why you make things so personal is beyond me. Link 2, 3, 5, 6 are all press releases and not independent. Something you might want to start keeping in mind is oursportscentral.com is a press release aggregation site, they say as much at the bottom of every page. Articles from there are never independent. Link 7 is a blog. And link 1 is a play by play of a game and not in depth about the subject. You really need to learn what valid sources are. And of course you always miss the part of WP:NHOCKEY that says "The meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." -DJSasso (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your selective “quote” actually comes from NSPORTS (not NHOCKEY) where it says above, and in Bold font, “The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below.” [emphasis mine] As I have already been demonstrated, reliable sources establish that this subject does meet GNG in addition to meeting the sport specific NHOCKEY criteria – hence my vote for Speedy Keep. Dolovis (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Telling me I selectively quote when you have taken your quote completely out of context. The sentence you quote is saying you have to provide sources to proove a article meets either GNG or NSPORTS. ie you have to provide sources that he was a CIS First team all star to proove he meets NHOCKEY. My quote is about the guideline itself, in that meeting the guideline does not make an article a keep automatically. BTW NHOCKEY is part of NSPORTS so what applies to NSPORTS applies to NHOCKEY. And you haven't demonstrated that any reliable sources exist, you have only provided non-independent sources and blogs. None of which establish notability. -DJSasso (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you getting upset? My quote was made in response to your quote, and no, it is not out of context, however your quote is selective as demonstrated by looking at the full-quote which reads: “Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept.” Further, all of my listed sources provide reliable and significant coverage, and there can be no doubt that #1, #6, and #7 are independent, and no #7 is not a blog. Dolovis (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your quote is completely out of context, you used it in a way that insinuated that meeting NHOCKEY meant and article should be speedy kept, which is not at all what that quote is talking about. Secondly my quote was quoting the part that was relevant to what I was saying, that just because he meets the guideline doesn't mean it should be speedy kept as you were trying to argue. Secondly being independent isn't the only requirement, they also have to be in depth and non-routine. #1 fails both of those. #6 fails the routine coverage part in that its a local paper covering a local team star. And #7 is a well known blog site or digital magazine as they like to call it. -DJSasso (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you have established that you disagree with my opinion, and I disagree with your characterization of the quality of my sources which are all demonstrability reliable and significant. In addition, ~~#1 The Brantford Press article is clearly independent and not routine coverage as it deals specifically and in-depth with the subject;~~ #6 The London Free Press article is also clearly independent, and provides a non-routine, in-depth feature on the subject; as well as #7 The Good Point article (a respected and independent on-line sports publication which maintains an editorial staff and so by definition is not a “blog”) also provides independent, non-routine coverage, which deals specifically and in-depth about the subject. Dolovis (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even read the The Brantford Press article? Nowhere in the article does it actually talk about him. It only talks about what he did in the game (and even then only a couple sentences). That is the very definition of a routine trivial coverage. -DJSasso (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Brantford article may actually be about a completely different player (goalie) with same surname. Canuckle (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I concede your point that the Brantford Press article doesn't provide significant coverage about the subject, but I stand by my opinion that the other listed sources all provide significant and reliable coverage, and that both the The London Free Press and the The Good Point articles are good examples of independent, reliable, and significant sources, as are this additional The Barrie Examiner article, and this Minden Times article. Dolovis (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Good Point article is basically a blog - albeit a decent one. The rest are basically local coverage, save for the NHL.com story. On that argument, nearly any junior hockey player could be considered notable, except for ample precedent that we do not consider them so. Reso lute 21:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, there are many exceptional junior hockey players who according to GNG could be considered notable, but this article additionally meets the precedent of inclusion via NHOCKEY criteria #4. Dolovis (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted above, it meets on a technicality, and only because the section is poorly worded. We discussed whether winning a major award in the NCAA was sufficient, but I don't recall a discussion for CIS, and suspect the result of the NCAA discussion was introduced using language that overreached. I've seen a few articles lately that have been created based on technical passes of NHOCKEY despite the players being otherwise not-notable. Given we have not done so in some time, I think it is time to reconsider aspects of the SNG. Reso lute 22:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that I don't consider CIS to be "major collegiate hockey" any more than I would consider the USHL to be "major junior". From a hockey perspective, CIS is pretty much a dead end; a way for former junior players to get a few more years while getting an education before turning to the real world. Reso lute 22:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By your train of thought, then the majority of Olympians would not be considered notable because, unless they achieved a medal in a major event, they too generally face a `dead end` in sports before turning to the real world. But that isn`t how WP:ATHLETE defines notability. An outstanding pinnacle reached by an individual, if verifiable, is enough to establish notability per WP:ATHLETE. It does not matter if that person goes no further with the sport. Canadian Interuniversity Sport (CIS), being the national governing body of university sport in Canada, is certainly recognized as “a major collegiate hockey league” which is why the consensus chose to word NHOCKEY as it is, without excluding CIS. Dolovis (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is a remarkably self-serving argument, particularly with the apples vs. oranges comparison involving the OG's. The Olympics are the pinnacle of nearly every sport that is competed within it. The CIS isn't even the pinnacle of amateur hockey in Canada. It has less interest and is accorded lower status than Major Junior. At any rate, most of this can be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Tightening the criteria for WP:NHOCKEY, and I encourage anyone interested to voice their opinions. Reso lute 23:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Dolovis' unsupported assertion notwithstanding, very few people claiming to be knowledgeable in hockey claim that the CIS is a "major collegiate hockey league." It's nothing of the sort, and indeed there are more professional players from Division II and III NCAA hockey (neither of which are "major collegiate") than ever make the pros from Canadian colleges. This isn't the first time that Dolovis has chosen to reinterpret NHOCKEY to his own ends (claiming that "Rookie of the Month" constituted a "preeminent honor" on a par with being an All-American or a top ten all-time career scorer being the most egregious one of my recollection), and I suggest we simply not play ball. Ravenswing 01:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk about unsupported assertations... "there are more professional players from Division II and III NCAA hockey (neither of which are "major collegiate") than ever make the pros from Canadian colleges" is absolutely untrue. Do you have any statistical source to support your assertion? And by the way, I have never claimed "Rookie of the Month" constituted a "preeminent honor" - Where do you get this stuff? But at least you are honest and making it apparent that your "delete" vote is more about "not playing ball" with me than it is about GNG or NHOCKEY. Dolovis (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Funny Dolovis, but weren't you chastising DJSasso in the other AFD for responding to every comment? At any rate, I disagree with Ravenswing in part in that I can buy the argument that you think CIS is "major collegiate hockey". I disagree with that argument as well, of course, but both positions are good faith, at the very least. Reso lute 03:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not funny at all. When a discouraging comment is directed at me, of course I will respond. It wouldn't be right to leave his comments about me hanging out there as if they are true. Dolovis (talk) 03:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for openers, let's examine why you feel the assertion about Canadian college players making the pros is "absolutely untrue." What is YOUR statistical source for making such a claim? Or is this -- like your recent insistence that the "Seattle Totems" were a done deal -- just another Something You Believe Very Strongly without any factual evidence one way or another? That being said, I accept that it might be difficult for you to believe that anyone could decide in an AfD on the merits as opposed to personalities. As far as your attempts to rewrite NHOCKEY go, in these [28] [29] AfDs you claim that being an all-star in the WJC meets criterion #4, in this [30] AfD you claim making the All-Academic team confers notability, in this [31] AfD you claim that the "best defensive forward" trophy is a preeminent honor, in this [32] AfD you claim that being selected at the top of the midget draft going into juniors somehow passes NHOCKEY, in this [33] AfD you assert that merely playing in the WJC meets NHOCKEY, in this [34] AfD you attempt to redefine what is or is not a major junior league against a recent consensus rejecting your premise (and, not for the only time, to claim that those opposing your position did so out of bias) ... and that's quite enough backtracking for 2 AM. Ravenswing 05:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. This is funny. I find it humorous that you somehow think that it is a good debating tactic to make unsupportable claims, and then attack the person who challenges you on it. I also think it is funny that of the past AfD's you have pulled out to demonstrate my “attempts to rewrite NHOCKEY”, 5 of 7 of your examples subjects are now accepted as notable! Voicing my opinion in an AfD can not be construed as “attempting to re-write NHOCKEY”, but even if true, so what? Voicing opinions to reach a consensus is the way Wikipedia discussions are supposed to work. I believe that if we are able to put personalities aside and take a dispassionate view of the independent, significant, and reliable sources, this subject would meet GNG. Dolovis (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're sounding rather like Humpty Dumpty -- that if you just keep on saying "unsupported, unsupported," perception will trump reality. (It sure beats, I expect, backing up your "absolutely untrue" statement with reliable sources.) That being said, of course you're aware that those subjects considered notable did that on the strength of meeting the GNG, not on the basis of your unilateral interpretations of NHOCKEY. Ravenswing 05:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Resolute and Ravenswing. I would encourage Dolovis to, instead of creating articles on barely (and often times, not even) notable minor leaguers/college award winners, focus on adding articles on clearly notable players. For example, we are missing thousands of players who have played in high-level European leagues, the World Championships, and the Olympic Games. Why not focus on those instead? --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 16:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like you, I am a volunteer. In addition to editing to improve articles, I have also created over three thousand articles for "clearly notable" players, with maybe a few dozen articles for players who I believe meet GNG, if not NHOCKEY. Only a very small percentage of the articles I have created have faced an AfD challenge, with most such articles continuing to exist on Wikipedia. I agree that there are many deserving subjects who should have Wikipedia articles, and if you have an interest in creating and improving the articles for European and IIHF tournament players, then I encourage you to do so. Dolovis (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing verdict to Keep after further examining the "further reading" section of the article. Based on those sources, D'Orazio meets the GNG in my eyes.

@Dolovis: I am aware that the vast majority of the articles you've created are easily notable. Thank you for creating them and I hope you continue to create more in the future :). --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 21:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any particular reason why those sources were lazily added to a "further reading" section, and not used to expand the article into something useful? Not that anyone needs to respond, I already know the answer and it is a rhetorical question. Reso lute 21:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not think the CIS is a major amateur league, therefore I do not think he meets NHOCKEY. The article can be re-created if he ever does. Patken4 (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered the sources to determine whether D'Orazio meets the GNG? Dolovis (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the sources and I would disagree that he meets GNG. Patken4 (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In reviewing NSPORTS it appears that D'Orazio meets criteria #1 of WP:NCOLLATH as a college athlete who has won a national award (All-Canadian First Team). Dolovis (talk) 05:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know except that meeting any of those conditions on any of the SNGs doesn't automatically mean keep. You have to back the notability up with sources. And as has been shown the sources you have provided don't. Not even remotely. -DJSasso (talk) 11:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria #1 of NCOLLATH would seem to be written more towards a winner of the Heisman Trophy, Dick Howser Trophy or Hobey Baker Award, at least to me. If consensus has been reached elsewhere that NCOLLATH would also apply to CIS athletes particularly with regards to ice hockey, please provide that information. Patken4 (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hasn't made pro, not even drafted. Not a member of a major championship squad. If this fellow meets NHOCKEY guidelines, then the guidelines need to be tightened up. PK T(alk) 13:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even if he doesn't meet NHOCKEY, he does meet GNG and WP:NCOLLATH, as verified by sources in the article. Dolovis (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NCOLLATH was written for the NCAA. You can't extrapolate it into other, lower, levels of post-secondary athletics. Reso lute 20:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The reference to NCAA is as an example only. If NCOLLATH was intended to be exclusively for NCAA athletes then it would be titled "NCAA athletes" and not "College athletes". Also NCOLLATH states that winning a "national award" meets its standard, rather than winning an "NCAA national award".

Strongest Possible Delete It is shown in this debate that D'Orazio doesn't meet WP:GNG because the sources available are all press releases and local in-game coverage, which isn't acceptable coverage. The sources Dolovis keeps bringing up were successfully rebutted yet he/she keeps trying to defend the article "using the same sources", instead of listening to Resolute and others advise to check for any extra sourcing to see if it meets GNG, thus saving the article from deletion. That either means that Dolovis is ignorant and lazy to find the sourcing, or there is none. This debate is ridiculous and I hope the closing administrator would take it to account. Secret ^account 00:58, 21 July 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. postdlf (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My Angel (song)[edit]

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

Non-notable song. Other non-notable songs with same title makes this an unlikely redirect to the artist's page or album. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm seeing nothing to indicate that this song is notable enough for its own article. And I agree a redirect shouldn't be used in this case. The title's just too generic. ALH (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree on the non-redirect, as well. EBY (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - no coverage found in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS. Gong show 15:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't appear to have charted, nor as meeting WP:GNG or WP:NSONGS. Google News archive results are sparse, even after customizing search criterion (e.g. [35]). Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:20, 20 July 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. --BDD (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People who Have Played Éponine Thénardier from Les Misérables[edit]

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

Bringing this up for discussion. I personally have no strong feelings either way as to whether this should be deleted or not, but am curious to know what others think about it. The article is actually really well referenced and extensively researched, but I don't see where we have similar pages for any other character in anything else, apart from a few examples like Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Who. It does look encyclopaedic for someone interested in the subject, but I wouldn't consider Éponine in the same league as Sherlock Holmes or the Doctor, so I think it is worth discussion. Either way, the creator did an amazing job collecting this information so it should be preserved somewhere even if it is decided not to be suitable for Wikipedia. (Too much to merge to Éponine?) Mabalu (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Specifically point 3 : "Excessive listings of statistics". Keep anyone who received significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources for their role and put them into Les Misérables (musical) or the equivalent article if they're not there. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do have strong feelings: delete. This is way TMI of an unencyclopedic quality. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no strong feelings: "no preference". Heck, I wrote this article, it's called being very bored on a summer day. mchristine1995 (talk) ) 11:54, 20 July 2013 (CST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.198.208.139 (talk)
Delete I have to echo Ritchie333: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Poor Éponine never catches a break, does she? And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic, which is a way of expressing the same sentiments stated above. Carrite (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's a really nice piece of work, by the way, my apologies to the content creator. Carrite (talk) 16:15, 23 July 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 as per affirmative consensus, the absence of calls for deletion beyond the nominator, and Michig's very helpful discovery of sources that confirm the subject meets WP:GNG requirements. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Review[edit]

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

Article provides only third-party source which discusses the article's subject, therefore the subject likely fails the general notability guideline. (ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe that this a sufficiently significant and longstanding publication, and a quick Google search found several sources, e.g. [36], [37], [38]. --Michig (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the sources provided above by User:Michig demonstrate that this magazine meets WP:GNG. Print publications often don't receive much coverage, so the fact that this one has is also a factor of consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- A spcialist magaxine with 20000 sounds notable to me. I feel sure we have articles on journals with a much smaller circulation. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:19, 22 July 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. L Faraone 01:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chess (application)[edit]

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

This article is pretty much like the articles on the Windows games Chess Titans, Spider Solitaire (Windows) and Purble Place. It's a issue of ~~WP:NOTTEMPORARY~~ (actually, this should be WP:NOTINHERITED) and ~~WP:GAMEGUIDE~~, because I doubt there's any critical reviews or in-depth independent sources that we could find for this article, and the fact that it's part of the popular Macintosh computer won't even save this article for being non-notable. EditorE (talk) 01:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think this article violates WP:GAMEGUIDE. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe not, but it's still not a notable-enough game to appear on Wikipedia either way. EditorE (talk) 12:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NOTTEMPORARY cannot be a reason for deletion. It says that, once a topic has received enough coverage to be classed as notable, it doesn't need continued coverage to maintain that notability. (So, for example, a book that was widely reviewed in the 1970s doens't become non-notable just because nobody's said much about it in the last 30 years.) Dricherby (talk) 08:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, actually it's a good reason, because the fact that the Macintosh is a very notable computer does not make the game notable, and we wouldn't we need ongoing coverage of a Macintosh by making articles of computer games bundled with the computer. It's still a non-notable topic. EditorE (talk) 12:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The concept that notability of Macintosh doesn't make bundled software notable is WP:NOTINHERITED. Seriously, WP:NOTTEMPORARY has nothing to do with it. Dricherby (talk) 12:45, 3 July 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) 15:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. None of the deletion reasons given apply to this article, except for the apparent lack of critical reviews or independent sources, a WP:GNG concern. The question is whether the software has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The answer may be no. Quale (talk) 17:53, 3 July 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, Theopolisme (talk) 01:35, 10 July 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, :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 12:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe all these small article Chess apps can be merged into this article? There are quite a few.NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 15:48, 16 July 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 as per affirmative consensus and the absence of calls for deletion outside of the nominator - who, it appears, made some very interesting claims without backing them up. The concerns raised in the discussion are valid: the article could use vigorous editing, and hopefully this will occur in the near future. A non-admin closure. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of water parks[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article contains erroneous, false and unverified information, each object should contain references but does not include. In the article are wrong object names, some places non-existent and false designation, for example, regular pool as a water park. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.218.0.106 (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm completing this nomination for an IP editor who wasn't able to complete all the steps. It's not clear to me why the IP thought this should be nominated a second time but now that the discussion exists, he or she is free to add a rationale. Stalwart111 12:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another list AFD that is a complete waste of time. The nomination raises nothing but clean up concerns. We have plenty of articles on water parks, as the contents of Category:Water parks show. Standard navigational list per WP:LISTPURP, complementary to the category structure per WP:CLN. postdlf (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Postdlf and WP:CLN. Address the content issues on the article's talkpage. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meeting WP:LISTPURP; that said, the article needs more sources and cleanup. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you see a mistake, fix it. AFD is not cleanup. Not everything on the list has to be a bluelink, but a significant number of things are to show its a notable topic for a list article. Dream Focus 15:38, 20 July 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. Consensus leaned towards "keep". AfD is not cleanup, and just because there is a dispute doesn't mean an article cannot be written about it. (apologies for the double negative) L Faraone 01:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snub TV[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

The current wiki entry for SNUB TV is erroneous. SNUB TV was created by the partnership of Brenda Kelly and Peter Fowler in the UK. It's first outing was in the US when the UK team created and produced this show for Night Network from London but the series came to global prominence (sold into numerous territories around the world and had two compilation videos)when it commenced its three series for the BBC - 1989-1991. Much of those series contents can now be seen uploaded by fans onto You Tube.

The current 'version of events' is not only wrong - claiming the SNUB TV was actually created by the US people who managed the deal with Night Network but is actively damaging the 'brand' and ongoing activity of the SNUB TV team. We have been trying to resolve these issues for most of the year but it seems to have become a war of words. Meanwhile the page - albiet with comments - continues to be on Wikpedia and is the source that most often comes up in a online search for the series. This is now so very frustrating and is throwing up so many misconceptions that for us we would rather have no information than the page that is so wrong.

We would be happy to endeavour to get INDEPENDENT accounts of SNUB TV written that could eventually replace the current page but as this wrangle over versions of events has been going on so long, and so unproductively deletion is now our prefered short term solution to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snubtvcreator (talk • contribs) 09:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC) — Snubtvcreator (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - I've been talking to this editor for some two months at OTRS (2013051510005184). There are two opinions that are totally different and the other editor is not really interested in working with Snubtvcreator to come up with a definitive version. The article is very poorly referenced (just the one ref), so it would be very hard for anyone to decide on what is the real story. Thus in such an absence of good quality referenced data, the whole article is effectively WP:OR and should go Ronhjones ^(Talk) 18:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Issues can be resolved by editing. It was a very significant music programme and there are several sources on GBooks that could be used. If there's something controversial here that can't be properly sourced, that part can go - the entire article doesn't need to. --Michig (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some of those sources: GQ: "Conceived by TV novices Brenda Kelly and Peter "Pinko" Fowler, who met while working for indie label Rough Trade, Snub was like a small-screen fanzine, dispensing with presenters, making its own music videos, interviewing bands, and generally documenting alternative culture that was invisible elsewhere: it gave the Manic Street Preachers, among others, their TV debut.", Cultural Studies, The Stone Roses: War and Peace, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, The Scotsman, A Version of Reason. --Michig (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While first declaring something of a COI, but probably less than that of the nominator, I invite a reading of the discussion on the talk page. Snubtvcreator seems to, rather than contribute to documentation of the latter illustrious history of the program, simply deny its US origins. The nomination refers to "Night Network", suggesting it was insignificant, when in fact it was Nightflight which was a popular coast-to-coast overnight network with millions of viewers. The nomination goes on as backup to refer to numerous likely WP:COPYVIO sources. In this diff summary Snubcreator then cites "problems for the producer" as a further rationale for deletion. I did a search on Google Books and the one reliable source I could come up with from the period - an Option Mag interview with host Brenda Kelly in 1987 - indeed directly ascribes the creative genesis of the program to Executive Producer Fran Duffy. [39] The lack of further documentation in the article on the later success is no reason to delete the earlier history, which itself could do with more sourcing, true. Wwwhatsup (talk) 06:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: SNUB TV 's orginators do not deny the fact that SNUB TV first aired on Night Network. Nor do we deny that Fran Duffy was the gobetween the originators / producers of the series and Night Network. Fran did broker the Night Network deal. But he did not come up with the programme format, content or do any of the production. So to say he was the originator is completely wrong. See this from JOHN PEEL in reviewing SNUB TV's first UK show - The Observer 8 January 1989 'The first SNUB TV was made for the US market for peanuts in the summer of 1987. It was shown on the country's largest cable network. This first British SNUB will feature in addition to the House of Love, clever Swiss duo Yello, Brtirappers the Cookie Crew and Fugazi recent and applauded Americans in London. Over chocoate last week, SNUB's Brenda Kelly and Peter Fowler told me future editions will include such companions to owls such as the Butthole Surfers, Sonic Youth.... With a theme provided by Adrian Sherwood's Barmy Army and a determination to bring us music from around the world, SNUB coms closer to being a definition of what I would wish to see and hear issuing from my television than anything since th short lived Revolver a decade ago. As this seems to be an unproductive back and forth, and is clearly getting nowhere, and Brenda Kelly and Peter Fowler are clearly the creators and producers of SNUB TV deletion is for now the only fair option — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snubtvcreator (talk • contribs) 10:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support Brenda Kelly and Peter 'Pinko' Fowler in their request to delete the SNUB TV page while the matter is to be resolved. As a journalist writing about music at the time, especially about the independent music scene, I knew both of them and SNUB TV; their account of the history of the series, from its inception onward, is 100% accurate. Martin Aston, UK freelance writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.195.194 (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 81.105.195.194 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

Comment I note that Fowler has posted a history on the talk page that in no way contradicts what is in the article. It is just a question of finding the sources to back it up. Since the Duffy founding is challenged I have scanned in and posted on the Internet Archive the content of the Asbury Park Press source which says "Locally Duffy is remembered as a concert promoter savvy enough to spot talent in a young Bruce Springsteen and book him in the clubs of Asbury Park some 30 years ago. He also founded SNUB-TV showcasing alternative music on the USA network in the 1980s.", in order that it may be reliably referenced. Perhaps the University of Virginia may be prevailed upon for a copy of the 1989 Brenda Kelly interview that reinforces the Duffy founding. The claim above that Duffy did not "do any of the production" on the American series is risible, assertions of 100% veracity by UK freelance writers notwithstanding, while Fowler and Kelly by their own admission had zero input on the third US series. There is no argument that Fowler and Kelly produced and directed the first two US series, and entirely originated the UK series, although I might wonder about the role of Jeanette Lee in the latter. But none of this is material. As far as deletion goes only notability is an issue, and I don't think anyone is questioning that. I suggest that this AfD be speedily closed. Wwwhatsup (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've nuked quite a bit of the article, the main reason being that this didn't really read like a neutral article. It wasn't promotional or anything like that, but read more like it was a blog entry or some other type of casual news site. I don't mean that in a bad way as far as entertainment or quality goes, but it just isn't exactly what we should have on a Wikipedia article. I'm also finding mentions of the series, so I'm adding those in as I find them. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The big problem I've found with verifying that the show was ever initially produced with the BBC in mind is that there's nothing to back this up other than the say so of the person who started the AfD. We can't go with someone on a Wikipedia page saying that it was originally planned for the BBC and not for a US show. That's not how Wikipedia rolls. Now if someone involved with the TV show wanted to do something along the lines of oh, contacting someone in a reliable source such as the Guardian and have them write an article on the history of Snub TV that confirms that the show started out as a BBC show (hint hint), then we can change this accordingly. But so far all we really have is the one source which apparently talks about it as starting as part of the USA network. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think I've found a happy medium. How about this sentence: "The show's concept was originally conceived by American producer Fran Duffy and aired as part of the Night Flight variety show while concurrently running on the BBC, where it ran for four seasons." It doesn't say that it initially aired on either channel, but instead says that it ran on both channels and that the BBC ran it for four seasons as opposed to the first season on Night Flight. But the big problem here is that we can't outright delete an entry just because it doesn't say what you want it to. It doesn't matter if you think you're right or not- the problem is whether or not we can actually verify this through reliable sources. So far the show has a lot of mentions but very little that goes into depth about its origins. Given that we have a lot and I repeat, a lot of people claiming to be someone, we can't go just by someone's say so. Even if you are who you say you are, we still can't go by that alone. It's fairly common for there to be differing opinions when it comes to something's origin, so we need to have this in a RS to ensure that it's been researched and verified. Going just by say-so is how a lot of rumors and mis-credits have happened, which is what we try to avoid. Most times things are usually what they claim to be, but there's enough of the other type of stuff that we have to do this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone in and edited the above. The UK and US versions were not concurrent. The BBC series was sometime later. I don't think this point is under contention. Wwwhatsup (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments above. The only way we can definitively say that this was initially planned for a certain channel is if we have reliable sources that say that it was. Given that this seems to have been huge in the UK during its time, it probably won't be too overly hard to find a RS that would be willing to give coverage for this. I recommend looking into getting someone from the Guardian, Spin magazine, or NME. They either seem to be the type that cover a lot of stuff or would be interested in covering this show. I know it's not as easy as calling them up and telling them to write something, but they're a good place to start. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - All of this just goes to support the request for deletion of the page whilst we resolve this dispute. Brenda Kelly and Peter Fowler created the format and produced ALL the series of SNUB TV. (except a series later made by Duffy without our permission or knowledge) Fran Duffy met Kelly in NYC where she was hosting a session on UK indie labels at the New Music Seminar and asked her if she would consider producing a show for US tv (based on the magazine she founded and edited that covered the independent label scene :The Catalogue). She then approached Fowler to work with her on this. They came up with a totally new and different idea to that of basing the show on The Catalogue. Kelly and Fowler commissioned original music (Adrian Sherwood) and Graphics (Paul White Me Co), and produced ALL the material in the UK for the Nightflight series - for 1987. They sent Duffy a tape of each series. He in no way could be said to have founded the show. They fell out with Duffy after 12 shows and insufficient funds to even cover all the origination costs. They then took a year to find a new commission and a home for it in the UK (where they and most of the artists they covered were based). Janet Street Porter commissioned it for the BBC. It ran for three series in the UK, sold internationally and had some best of compilations. 'The third series of SNUB in the US' referred to ... Apparently - as we only heard rumour of this year - and unbeknowst to us - the SNUB TV team - Duffy actually ripped off the titles and format and without our knowledge or consent continued to make the show for USA Network (Actually a copyright violation). I do appreciate Tokoy Girls comments and we will seek some further independent verification - though apparently the support we did get from Martin Aston who was (is) a music journalist writing for both sides of the pond has been trashed by wwwhatsup! Our point is that Fran Duffy did approach Kelly (she was an acknowledged expert on the independent music scene with formidable contacts) and ask her to produce the show and yes did get us the deal, but we (Kelly/Fowler) came up with our original format (not what Duffy had thought of) , Duffy did NONE of the production nor did he 'found' or originate SNUB TV

Keep - not a reliable source this one but hopefully that'll convince everyone this was a real TV show, although it's not as well remembered (in my mind) compared to Rapido or The Late Show, where The Stone Roses infamously harrangued Tracey MacLeod with calls of "amateurs!" a minute in, or (heaven forbid) The Word. I'm not interested in whose idea it was to make the show, or who actually did what - if it's verified as being a BBC TV show (and a Google Books search for "snub tv bbc" confirms that it is), general consensus per WP:TVSHOW deems it notable. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has now been cleaned up. The author of unsigned comment above is still in denial of a few of years of development that went into the show before Kelly got involved, and that in the latter stages included Fowler. Perhaps sources will emerge. How such radical content made it on to USA national tv is a notable tale worthy of document. It served to spur MTV to develop its own programming of alternative music. It's a pity that both Loder and Duffy are not around to be interviewed, but there are others, including Fowler and MacFie. Not to mention other New York people involved in production. It's even possible that the original contracts between Snub Inc and Southern can be produced. Essentially it was a work-for-hire under US law. It could even be well argued that the UK series was a copyright violation, not that it was ever a point of contention. Not that any of this is material here. I suggest again that the AfD be dismissed. Wwwhatsup (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I note that the nom appears to be a single purpose account related to the nomination. If the article is inaccurate, the answer is not to delete it, but to correct it. I did not see the programme have have no idea who is telling the truth. The fact that the subject has generated so much controversy suggests to me that the subject is notable. Hence some article should be kept. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:27, 22 July 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. L Faraone 01:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss Military Tarpaulins[edit]

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

This completely fails to meet the GNG and appears to be entirely WP:OR YSSYguy (talk) 08:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is a translation from the germann Wikipedia unforunatly the german wikipedia page had no references. The page is about a swiss army tool who is used very often in the military for differend applications and also for differend applications by civil users like the boy scout , farmers and so one. I have add now a referenc.
Book: kennen+können Auth Oberholzer Cotti ISBN 3 7252 0291 5
About Militärblachen on youngstarwiki (german)[40]
[41]

FFA P-16 (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence that this is any more notable than thousands of other similar common Army equipment. MilborneOne (talk) 11:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources per WP:GNG. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:07, 25 July 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. --BDD (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, Arizona[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I have absolutely no idea why the subject of this article is notable. Somehow, the fact that the State of Arizona has more locations with "Hell" in the name than any other State doesn't seem like it belongs in an article.

Not only that, the title "Hell, Arizona" doesn't provide the right idea of what the article is written about. One would assume from the title that the article is about a town or city in Arizona named Hell, when the article is listing every location in Arizona with "Hell" in the name, and explaining why these locations are named such.

I grant that there is notable information provided in the article; however, it does not outweigh the general notability of the article. I would see the article deleted, but information deemed notable moved to another. I am Quibilia. (talk) 08:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This should really be named List of places in Arizona with "Hell" as part of the name. Way too trivial to merit an article. Hell, all the places are redlinks. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

cast into the lake of everlasting fire Wikipedia is not the place to put your failed submissions to Ripley's Believe It or Not. Mangoe (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At the very least, it is a proper disambiguation page as this is a likely search term. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. No, it's not. See WP:PTM. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no location in Arizona (per Google Maps) called "Hell" alone; I don't think that it's a likely search term. Ansh666 18:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is not an article about Hell, Arizona. Thus, it should not exist. EBY (talk) 03:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is not an article about a city in Arizona called specifically "Hell", which is what should be there if anything. The most that can be done is have some kind of article about places with "Hell" as part of the name and mention that Arizona has the most of them. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 16:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not an article regarding a community entitled Hell. TBrandley (T • C • B) 08:06, 23 July 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. Whereas arithmetically, there are more keeps, I do not feel that the arguments of Tokyogirl79 were sufficiently well addressed, hence I close it as no consensus (with keep as default).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomberg Aptitude Test[edit]

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

Re-Creation of a speedy'd page (likely by a sock of the blocked user). Reads like an advert/promo. Dusti^*poke* 04:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article's wording can simply be changed. It is not an advert nor promo as it is well cited. One can simply reword to sound less commercial. The article lists plenty of citation. Also, if you take notice, the first half of the page follows a similar format as that of the SAT page, which is non commercial at all. 12:21AM, 8, July 2013 (EST)— Preceding unsigned comment added by ThoughtInspiring (talk • contribs) — ThoughtInspiring (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True, the promotional prose can always be removed. However, what is ultimately at question here is whether or not this test is ultimately noteworthy outside of Bloomberg L.P.. Even under its original title of Bloomberg Assessment Test, I'm not really finding a lot of sources. (Incoming editors should note that the current name, Bloomberg Aptitude Test has only been in use officially this year so you won't get much under that name.) I see where some colleges use it, but not a huge amount. There aren't a big amount of hits as far as either name goes, at least not enough to really establish notability per Wikipedia's rules. So far I'm leaning towards a brief mention in the parent article of Bloomberg LP and redirecting there. The company is notable and I think in this instance the subject matter in general would be best served by creating a subsection in the main article for BLP about the Bloomberg Institute and mentioning the test there. I can't see where this test is really as wildly well known as some of the other tests out there. Keep in mind that this test has only been in existence for three years- it's pretty common for most products (and this is ultimately a product) to not achieve notability outside of their company/creator until they've been around for years. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In terms of the number of colleges that use it, sources state that over a thousand universities offer it in fifty eight countries. We need to quantify how much is really "substantial enough" to establish notability, and a thousand universities seem like a fair amount. Considering the precedents on specialized exams, the GMAT is offered in 1500 universities, just a bit higher than the BAT. It is also important to take note that the exam is uniquely individual enough that it should not fall under it's parent article Bloomberg LP as the parent is known for it's media contributions, whereas the exam is more of an educational product of it's subsidiary - it is more relevant to students and universities than it does to news media.It is important to note that the exam is only as much of a product as the SAT is, the difference being that this exam is mostly free to take. This article can be substantially edited to provide a scholarly breakdown of the exam as it's predecessors have. Three years seem like a significant time period given that exams such as the SHSAT have been established as Wikipedia note worthy given the same time length. Citations include notable institutions such as Stanford University that offer and promote the exam on campus. The exam itself seems to have global university recognition and returns 70,000 unique pages on Google. 07:42, 8 July 2013 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThoughtInspiring (talk • contribs) — ThoughtInspiring (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep If it's not independently notable it should be merged to article on parent company. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's at least one good independent source, not included in the article "Test for Future Financiers " Inside Higher Ed., June 1, 2012 This is a very reputable professionally edited news letter, & the article is not in any sense a press release. Looking at some major university sites, I found also from Duke -- but they were a beta site for the project.'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd be fine with merging it to an article on the parent company as per Candleabracadabra's suggestion. Dusti^*poke* 01:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Merging the articles go against precedent articles such as SAT, SHSAT, GMAT, ACT, etc... I agree with DGG that the article still has many reputable sources not cited yet and is actually notable enough for it's own page to be built upon. The Parent company is a media company which should not be merged with it's educational subsidiary products. ThoughtInspiring(talk) 12:35 AM, 9 July 2013

Actually, the parent subject is Bloomberg Institute which doesn't have an article. I redirected it to the test article. And the parent article to the institute would be Bloomberg Co. But if it's independently notable, that's fine too. Candleabracadabra (talk) 06:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that User:ThoughtInspiring is likely a sock of the blocked user who originally created the article. Dusti^*poke* 16:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://about.bloomberginstitute.com/about-us/

Please note that this is a baseless accusation. Let's not take away from the main point of discussion, that being the notability of the subject, by resorting to ad-hominem arguments and finger pointing.ThoughtInspiring (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually not a subsidiary after all! Corrected page to reflect the institute as being an educational division of Bloomberg LP as a part of a venture rather than a corporate subsidiary.ThoughtInspiring (talk) 11:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has been concern over possible socking, I'll open up a sock check. It's possible that this is the same user, but it's possible that they're not. Opening up an investigation will clear up any worries once and for all either way. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppet investigation has been opened here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPI does show that User:ThoughtInspiring is likely User:BloombergInstitute - while the recreation of the account in itself is not blockable, this is the recreation of an article meant for self promotion. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPI has been closed, there is no evidence proving the accusation, and the verdict is that even if your accusation were to be true (of which it's not), there would still be no violation. Any further attack on my account that deviates from the notability of this subject should be considered as an attack on my user rather than focusing on the article's notability consideration. As other users have noted above, promotional prose can be removed. I believe the community has reached a consensus on the matter. ThoughtInspiring (talk) 03:16, 16 July 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, Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 07:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've relisted the AfD as the large amount of conversation has been over the Socking of User:ThoughtInspiring and User:BloombergInstitute. The "keep" !vote from ThoughtInspiring was indented, as there's a COI there. The other suggestions are Keep as independently notable, and keep and/or merge. I believe the merge idea is something that should be considered and/or discussed, but I felt that a relist is warranted to get more input with the updated SPI information. (For those that are TLDR - SPI came out as WP:DUCK - article created likely as a self promo, however, there's hints of notability. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 07:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate for Speedy Keep WP:SK. Nominator fails to advance an argument for deletion.69.191.241.59 (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Withdrawing nomination for Speedy Keep WP:SK. Relist demonstrates the need for "procedural discussion" and as such is an exception to the rule. On the other hand, I found a good article on the BAT - "The brand spanking new Bloomberg Assessment Test ". The exam is also offered in Columbia University, an ivy league school; "Bloomberg Assessment Test". This article has great potential for expansion. I think it is notable enough for independence.69.191.241.59 (talk) 14:28, 24 July 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. L Faraone 01:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Percussive maintenance[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No evidence of notability, and not much more can be said about the topic than the one sentence already present. HGK745 (talk) 06:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Already transwikied according to the previous AFD, and there's no reason not to ratify the early action. Mangoe (talk) 12:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the case, maybe this should be speedily deleted then? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 17:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a cute term, but no chance for an article to be more than a dicdef, possibly enhanced with "In popculture" section. However IMO the nominator is mistaken about notability of the concept itself. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a dicdef of a slang term. -- Whpq (talk) 17:06, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Soft-redirect to Wiktionary. To aid readers, and to prevent re-creation (by letting editors see that only 1 sentence has ever been achieved for this regularly viewed topic). –Quiddity (talk) 20:06, 24 July 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. postdlf (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Splash-class cruise ship[edit]

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

Unsourced and Google did not turn out anything relevant. Also, WP:CRYSTAL as no order has been placed at any shipyard by Carnival Tupsumato (talk) 05:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a possible hoax. Nothing on Google turned up any proof of this. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a hoax – the new ship is mentioned in the Carnival Cruise Lines article, which cites this source. But there's no mention of it being called "Splash", and neither the unbuilt ship or its class are notable at this point in time. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. However, until we get more information about the new ship(s), I don't see the point of having a separate article. It's enough to mention it here. Tupsumato (talk) 08:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per the source above, this ship might exist in the future, but the title, etc., are purely speculative. Fails WP:CRYSTAL and at face value violates WP:V. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:V. New ships have been ordered but there are no reliable sources supporting the class name. Speculation at best. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice for recreation when the ships are constructed - right now it's WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTALballing, and (given the fact the ships in question appear to not yet be named at all) WP:HAMMER might be invokable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:38, 18 July 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. postdlf (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MO CHEAIB[edit]

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

This subject appears to not meet WP:BASIC for a Wikipedia article. After source searching, not finding any coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Created by Mcheaib23. Probably not a coincidence. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only assertions of significance are where the article states he is part of two companies, which are both non-notable. 069952497a (U-T-C-E) 00:51, 10 July 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, czar · · 04:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, patently self-promotion. Actually I'm surprised this wasn't tagged as ((db-g11)) right away. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:09, 16 July 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 08:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MacType[edit]

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

I found no coverage of this software. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 23:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi, I hope the following articles can help:
- http://www.vector.co.jp/magazine/softnews/130529/n1305291.html
- http://www.forest.impress.co.jp/docs/review/20120427_529485.html
- http://www.appinn.com/mactype/
- http://www.iplaysoft.com/mactype.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexlur (talk • contribs) 03:40, 3 July 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Are these reliable sources? They're all in Japanese, so I can only use Google translate, but they seem to be descriptive reviews and don't strongly assert its notability. Mention of the software in an article that contains more than descriptive/promotional copy would be more substantial, as would mention in a magazine article falling under editorial review. --R.S. Peale (talk) 05:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you for your reply. I did some search and found these:

http://geekchunk.com/operating-systems/use-gdipp-or-mactype-to-get-mac-or-linux-style-font-smoothing-in-windows/ This article mentions and compares GDI++ and MacType.
http://tech.sina.com.cn/s/2011-03-24/18311694262.shtml (Chinese) This Q&A page mentions compatibility of Internet Explorer 9 and MacType.
http://www.geekpark.net/read/view/157288 (Chinese) This review article of Kindle and iPad compares their font rendering technology to MacType. The article was reposted on the 163 website and cnBeta (the link no longer works though).

Alexlur (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:38, 3 July 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, Theopolisme (talk) 00:04, 9 July 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, czar · · 04:08, 16 July 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 Nano-RAM. (non-admin closure) czar · · 08:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nantero[edit]

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

Promotional type sources, looking found only more of the same. Not independently notable per WP:GNG as sources are either PR style or routine. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:43, 3 July 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, Theopolisme (talk) 00:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about merge of Nantero into one section in Nano-RAM? The two combined would be more likely to be justified. The Nano-RAM article has way too many technical details, and even fewer sources than the company one. A single balanced neutral article that gives the business history and a quick overview of the technology (referring to sources for details) would be nice to keep.

Should clarify that much of the company article is due to single-purpose account User:Nto-joe who discloses a conflict of interest on their user page. W Nowicki (talk) 16:22, 10 July 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, czar · · 04:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nano-RAM, which is the company's sole product. Nantero seems not to have any notability separate from this product, but the product itself is certainly notable. -- 202.124.74.9 (talk) 09:56, 16 July 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. postdlf (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OpenLRN – Open Learning Resources Network[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Seems to be an Indian educational website that shut down a while ago. I can't find any reliable sources through web searches, but that may be because I'm in the U.S. and this is an Indian website. None of the sources that are included in the article even mention the subject, except for maybe a reference to the website itself, which is dead. The organization has a WordPress blog, which last activity was in April 2009. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 3 July 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, Theopolisme (talk) 00:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article uses the term "our hope" which indicates a primary relationship. It is also essentially anticipative, talking of a future proof-of-concept, and its references are non-specific (Wikipedia even figuring large) - all of which is hardly indicative of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 06:06, 9 July 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, czar · · 04:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject is non-notable and the article is promotional. Fails WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 22:04, 16 July 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James G. White[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 July 2. Snotbot t • c » 19:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:46, 3 July 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, Theopolisme (talk) 00:06, 9 July 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, czar · · 04:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any significant coverage. Note also that the article was created by User:Jameswhite. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:35, 16 July 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. L Faraone 01:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AirPatrol Corporation[edit]

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

CSD contested, no indication that company meets WP:CORP. Dewritech (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article certainly isn't fully complete, but the subject is more than notable enough to be part of Wikipedia. Here are some secondary sources, some of which were removed by the removal of the "promotional" product page: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aKSPHmVUjrC8 http://www.mcafee.com/us/microsites/sia-integrations/partners/airpatrol.html http://finance.yahoo.com/news/AirPatrol-WPM-2-0-Now-iw-2361970044.html http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/4/prweb10649113.htm http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/AirPatrol-Selected-as-SINET-16-Innovator-to-Present-at-2012-SINET-Showcase-1706394.htm http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/news/2013/03/22/airpatrol-expanding-in-columbia.html?page=all http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/5/prweb10718985.htm http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100426007034/en/AirPatrol-Corporation-Continues-Expansion http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100126006658/en/AirPatrol-Expands-Globally-Channel-Partners

to name a few. It should also be noted the user who recommended this page for deletion frequently does so for relevant small businesses. • APrb(talk)

From AirPatrol corporation's talk page: "This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... AirPatrol is a legitimate company with members of the Board of directors including William Crowell and Nolan Bushnell (founder of Atari and Chuck E. Cheese) and partners/customers including McCafee, Bridgewater Trading, SOCOM, and several intelligence agencies. Additionally, this page was written with the intent of a neutral point of view. AirPatrol Corporation has also been nominated for several innovation awards, and is relevant enough to deserve a page on WikiPedia. Although this page is not fully complete from an encyclopedic perspective, it is fundamentally encyclopedic rather than for advertising. We hope this page can be improved to further show its relevance by WikiProject Companies--APrb (talk)"

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:26, 9 July 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, czar · · 04:03, 16 July 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. L Faraone 01:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shimoga Telecom Companies[edit]

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

List relate to a town in Karnataka state in India. The companies listed are not specific to the town but have operations all over India. Shyamsunder (talk) 20:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteAs per nominators opinion Uncletomwood (talk) 09:29, 2 July 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, L Faraone 01:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of telecom companies in India. The entire GSM section of this article is absent from the India article. Grandmartin11 (talk) 17:19, 9 July 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, czar · · 03:57, 16 July 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. L Faraone 01:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

State Bank of India Officers' Association (Chandigarh Circle)[edit]

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

The trade union of officers only based in a couple of states of a single bank in India. Fails notability test. Shyamsunder (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteregional unit of a non notable trade union Uncletomwood (talk) 09:30, 2 July 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, L Faraone 01:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to State Bank of India Officers' Association instead, keep article about nat'l level union. --Soman (talk) 11:01, 9 July 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, czar · · 03:56, 16 July 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar · · 08:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elinor McKenzie Shield[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

last AfD 2 years ago had no consensus. most of this article is not about the Shield but rather unreferenced statements on Elinor McKenzie. keep in mind this is a junior amateur title. also trove just shows only one non primary source [42] LibStar (talk) 06:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into ASF National Championships and actually make sure it gets done this time unlike with Arthur Allsopp Shield (2nd nomination), if you cant merge it put the information on the talk page......... why dont we just save alot of time and merge in the other 3 articles you are about to nominate aswell? --Dan027 (talk) 10:54, 3 July 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, L Faraone 02:12, 9 July 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, czar · · 03:55, 16 July 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. postdlf (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move Your Body[edit]

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

This is yet one of those articles that yet has great commercial performance, but unfortunatly can't be on Wikipedia. I was looking to see if there was enough background info and critical reviews to satisfy the notability of this article, but I was pretty much out of luck, and when looking for critical reactions about this song in reviews of Europop, I could only find such little responses. I'm hoping someone can add more in-depth info and critically published opinions of this topic that's enough to be here and so I can withdraw this discussion. EditorE (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting criteria 1 and 3 of WP:NSONG. Frankly, I feel that a song which ranked first in France, Italy, Austria, Canada, Denmark and on Eurochart, which peaked at third place in UK, which entered Billboard, which was a top 10 hit in several other countries, which was certified gold and platinum in five different countries has sufficently proofed its notability. The article is decently sourced and not so short as to warrant a merging with the article about the album. Cavarrone 22:23, 9 July 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, czar · · 03:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's enough here to be kept. It's clearly significant enough. The deletion rationale seems basically to be focused on WP:GNG, and this is one of many examples that shows how severely limited that guideline is. --Michig (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NSONG does not outrank WP:GNG. This song has not received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, therefore it isn't notable by WP standards. Note also that WP:NSONG states:

Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created.

That's definitely the case here. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At best you could ask for merging, but asking for deletion such quite long article is very silly, especially as you are quoting NSONG saying "If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article" (stress mine). GNG is not a policy, it is just a guideline not less or not more than NSONG. And NSONG says "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article" (this appears to be the case) "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." As I said above, deletion isn't an option. Cavarrone 09:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opposed to a merge because I feel that such intricate discussion of a single track would be out of place in the album article (I mean, I'm not saying I'm violently opposed to it, I'm just explaining why I voted that way). And GNG is the superior guideline, to which all the subject-specific guidelines must defer. WP:NSONG restates the GNG in its first sentence, and later says "The following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable, though a standalone article should still satisfy the aforementioned criteria" (emphasis mine). The stuff you quote about article length is irrelevant, because we're not putting notability aside – notability is what we're discussing. DoctorKubla (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot apply the parts of the guideline that you like and ignore the parts you don't like. Cavarrone 20:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A check of the deletion pages of many songs articles shows that the charting criterion is probably the main one to be cited to establish notability and therefore to keep the pages. These many precedents can't be definitely ignored as there is a broad consensus among Wikipedians on the subject. Deleting this kind of page (a charting single, by a notable artist, from a notable album, and certified in many countries) on the ground of lack of coverage despite charting would create a rule that I consider harmful as it could concern 80% of songs articles that enjoyed commercial success, but for which coverage in magazines is not easy to find. Btw, I think the proper place to find references for these "old" songs (i.e. released more than ten years ago) in not Google, but the various encyclopedias on music. I am assuming this song is of such stature as to have been written about. --Europe22 (talk) 09:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be creating a rule, it would be following a rule that has existed for years (WP:Notability). The reason why significant coverage in reliable sources is necessary is explained at WP:WHYN. And I think it goes without saying that "I assume sources exist" isn't a very compelling argument. DoctorKubla (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Europe22 is correct, I remember tons of songs that were kept on the basis of charting, and I don't remember ANY article about a song with such commercial accomplishments that was deleted at AfD. Can you point one, please? Cavarrone 20:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting a page of a song that charted in many countries is something that has never been applied (the only exception I remember was a song, which was not released as a single, that barely charted in only one country, at number 74 and for one week, and for which there was nothing to say). For now, the rule is to keep these pages. In addition, the "Move Your Body" page uses reliable sources, as charts, certifications and reviews are properly sourced, and it is long enough to get its own article, which can be considered a proof of the subject's notability. And I said "I assume sources exist" because I already added in the article a reference from my encyclopedia of hits in France, so I can reasonably assume that many similar books (including those in foreign languages, as the song charted worldwide) also refer to this song. --Europe22 (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Topping multiple charts in multiple countries is practically the definition of a notable song. With the sheer combination of multiple sources it equates to "significant" coverage per WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 03:09, 17 July 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. L Faraone 01:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too Much of Heaven[edit]

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

I'm actually a big fan of most of Eiffel 65's music, and I've been willing to improve at least one Eiffel 65 article up to GA status. However, this is yet one of those articles that yet has great commercial performance, but unfortunatly can't be on Wikipedia. I was looking to see if there was enough background info and critical reviews to satisfy the notability of this article, but I was pretty much out of luck. I'm hoping someone can add more in-depth info and critically published opinions of this topic that's enough to be here and so I can withdraw this discussion. EditorE (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this meets the WP:Music with appearances on several charts in different countries. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charting is by and large considered the least reliable method of gauging notability for WP:NSONG. Editor Eat ma talk page up, scotty! 13:40, 12 July 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, czar · · 03:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is clearly significant enough to be covered. At the very least it should be merged, although there's probably too much content to make that appropriate. --Michig (talk) 07:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources, as required by GNG. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge clearly passes NSONG and probably fails GNG but deletion is not even an option, maybe we could merge the content with the article about the album (I am definitely neutral about that), but this is just editorial matter and could be discussed in the proper places (ie talk pages). Cavarrone 09:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant chart hit in several countries, got as high as number 2 in Italy! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:53, 16 July 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. L Faraone 01:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky (In My Life)[edit]

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

I'm actually a big fan of most of Eiffel 65's music, and I've been willing to improve at least one Eiffel 65 article up to GA status. However, this is yet one of those articles that yet has great commercial performance, but unfortunatly can't be on Wikipedia. When trying to improve this, I couldn't really find any independent sources about this song. Yes, there's release, critical reception, etc. and it did good on the charts, but this article and what I was looking for about this song bares independent sources. I'm hoping someone can add more in-depth info from independent sources and critically published opinions of this topic that's enough to be here and so I can withdraw this discussion. EditorE (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 9 July 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, czar · · 03:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It charted in several countries, so it passes WP:NSONG. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another one that clearly has sufficient significance to be covered. Merging may be a possibility, deletion is out of the question. --Michig (talk) 07:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. May pass WP:NSONG, but not WP:GNG. And the song is only ever mentioned in reviews of the album as a whole, which WP:NSONG says isn't sufficient to establish notability. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge clearly passes NSONG and probably fails GNG but deletion is not even an option, maybe we could merge the content with the article about the album (I am definitely neutral about that), but this is just editorial matter and could be discussed in the proper places (ie talk pages). Cavarrone 09:41, 16 July 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 Ambassador of Colombia to Poland et al. (non-admin closure) czar · · 08:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Colombia, Warsaw[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. simply an address listing where it is located. being located near "near the National Stadium, the Fryderyk Chopin University of Music, and the Asia and Pacific Museum" adds nothing to notability. those wanting to keep must show actual third party sources. LibStar (talk) 02:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ambassador of Colombia to Poland, Colombia—Poland relations, List of diplomatic missions of Colombia, or some other suitable target. Why keep bringing embassies to AfD when there are viable alternatives to deletion? Pburka (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

because I believe they should be deleted, the articles should not have been created in the first place purely to be merged into other articles. LibStar (talk) 04:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is, I think, a clear community consensus to merge these articles rather than delete them, as demonstrated in previous discussions. Pburka (talk) 02:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

there has also been consensus to delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Estonia, Ottawa, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Gabon, Ottawa, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of Argentina, Kiev. LibStar (talk) 03:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two of those had at least as many merge !votes as delete !votes. The only reason they were deleted was because there were no obvious merge targets. That's not the case for this article. Pburka (talk) 12:18, 11 July 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, czar · · 03:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect per Pburka, and second using WP:ATD when possible rather than directly going to AfD. Ansh666 06:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Unless the relations article is very clearly not notable, it should be merged per WP:BARE, WP:CHEAP, and WP:REFUND. Bearian (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. All I can find is a two-sentence entry at Jan Patryas; Henryk Szczepaniak; Ministerstwo Spraw Zagranicznych (1979). Stosunki dyplomatyczne Polski 1944-1981 r: Ameryka (1944-1978). Pań. Wydawn. Naukowe. Retrieved 21 July 2013.. The only value in the article is that it geolocates the entity on a map; but I don't see how we can justify keeping it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:02, 21 July 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. L Faraone 01:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John D. Lukacs[edit]

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

Biographical article does not meet notability standards in WP:AUTHOR. However, the book Escape From Davao does meet criteria 1 of WP:BKCRIT and much of the existing text could be salvaged if the article was moved to Escape from Davao. As the move is expected to be contentious, we'd like to formalize the process at AfD. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Move/Merge: Move and merge to Escape from Davao, concentrating on the book and retaining some of the author's bio. The book seems to have sufficient independent RS reviews and media, including the already linked (in the author's article) ESPN, WWII Mag (two reviews), C-SPAN, Pittsburgh Magazine. Also available are Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [43]; and according the the Amazon "Editorial Reviews" [44]: the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, and the San Angelo Standard-Times. Also Kirkus and Booklist (do either of those count?). There may be additional post-publication reviews that we are not aware of yet. Apparently there is also a (PBS?) documentary underway based on the book: [45]. In any case, I agree with the nominator that the author himself does not meet WP:AUTHOR, but the book has enough reviews to meet WP:BKCRIT. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move/Merge per nom. Makes perfect sense to me. Yintan 13:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All relevant info has by now been copied to Escape from Davao so the article can go. Yintan 22:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Move/Merge~~ The author could be notable, but the only sources (aside from book reviews) are articles he's written. I'd support a straight-up Delete, too; ~~but Merge seems less drastic.~~--R.S. Peale (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based on his recent edits, and assertion that literary editors are conspiring against him on-wiki. Unless we add mention of the cabal to his article page.--R.S. Peale (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely does not even approach meeting WP:AUTHOR. Vanity self-created article. I have saved all relevant citation information for Escape from Davao on a userpage, but since the author himself has already created that article (again against WP:COI rules), there is no reason to merge or re-direct the non-notable author's article to it. Softlavender (talk) 22:21, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with argument put forward by Softlavender above.Finnegas (talk) 20:40, 24 July 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 Speedy delete. Deleted under WP:G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. It actually could've been speedied as WP:A7, as this was an unreleased prospective YouTube video series. (This was somewhat hidden in the wall of text.) I've also salted the page, as this has been repeatedly re-created. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Serum Chronicles[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. It's a non-notable YouTube film. A7 CSD was denied. Ish dar ian 03:16, 16 July 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. --BDD (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Budin[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Hasn't played in a fully professional league and hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:16, 22 July 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. --BDD (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Demourtzidis[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Hasn't played in a fully professional league and hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 02:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He has not played in a fully pro league. I also couldn't find any significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:16, 22 July 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. Wizardman 15:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Henriquez[edit]

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

Not notable. Minor league baseball player whose biggest claim to fame is being the switch hitter that faced Pat Venditte in that short season game. Sources discuss him only in passing, not at the level of depth required for GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I doubt that his achievements themselves rise to a level that would typically meet notability. But if he was half responsible (with Venditte) for baseball making the switch hitter/pitcher rule change, then he may well warrant an article. Or at least a merge and redirect to the section in Venditte's article discussing the incident and the rule change. Rlendog (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would disagree because of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTINHERITED, since the moment drew attention to the switch pitcher, not the switch htiter. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can see WP:NOTINHERITED, although I think it is a bit of a stretch, since his own actions were part of what led to the rule change. But neither that nor WP:BLP1E, which I think is more relevant, preclude a redirect (and merger of the relevant material, which is limited) to the article which discusses the issue for which he played his 1E role. Rlendog (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominators rationale. Spanneraol (talk) 00:47, 22 July 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 speedy deletion (G3, A7). Non-admin closure. AllyD (talk) 05:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The maqupellas[edit]

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

Non-notable musical group lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. reddogsix (talk) 01:53, 16 July 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.