< 9 March	11 March >

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Presidents by IQ[edit]

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

The subject of the article is highly speculative for the most part, and also only supported by one source. There's a lack of significant coverage of this subject, and little need for these estimates to be housed on the wiki. Ducknish (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: I only began working on this article and I think that with caveats explaining where this information came from and with some prose sentences in this article it would be nice enough to keep. Also, I did put info from other sources and studies into this article. Futurist110 (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the sources, the fact remains that the contents of the article are almost entirely speculation on the part of the reference's authors. We have no way of knowing for certain what the I.Q. was of almost all the presidents listed. And with that, the fact that the sources are contradicting seems to show that these numbers can not be reasonably verified as factual. The article has no way to exist without being heavily reliant on guesswork, which is why I support its deletion. Ducknish (talk) 00:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we at least compromise and move the contents of this article somewhere else? It would be a huge shame to lose all of this work after I spent so much time and effort into creating this article and table. Futurist110 (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the numbers that could be verified could be moved to their subject's article, if they are not already there? Ducknish (talk) 00:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would be easier to simply rename this article "Simonton's 2006 Presidential IQ study" or something like that? Futurist110 (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the article were to be reoriented towards the study itself instead of a general list, that might be fine, assuming that the study was the subject of reasonable coverage. Ducknish (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another idea would be to merge this article's contents into this other article -- U.S. Presidential IQ hoax. Futurist110 (talk) 00:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that article you linked, it seems to already cover this one's subject matter to a degree. So perhaps some could be moved to the IQ Estimation section. Ducknish (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Yeah, I have now moved the results of this study to this other article, and made this article a redirect page. I hope that this is a good compromise and outcome for you. Futurist110 (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not according to wikipedia guidelines. Look at WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL. You can't just estbalish IQ after the fact. It's totally the same as having a chart presenting the presidentíal body fat percentages obatined from old presidential tales. Forngrav (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, possibly in a different form (e.g. an article IQs of United States Presidents which explains the different studies), possibly merged with U.S. Presidential IQ hoax. The topic of presidential IQ appears notable based on the studies done into it. However, presenting as a list hides the debatable and speculative nature of the IQ estimates. --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Summary of a single study, and one based upon an extremely sketchy premise — that intelligence can be garnered and compared across the sands of time. Fails the necessity of multiple published sourcing. Carrite (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

.......and one that is comically wrong to boot, as anybody who saw Ronald Reagan in action can attest. Carrite (talk) 02:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge - I am changing my vote to redirect/merge since I think that this article can be merged with the U.S. Presidential IQ hoax article. Futurist110 (talk) 08:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as excessive cross-categorization per WP:NOTDIR: we don't have List of United States Presidents by height, weight or hair colour, for the same reason. There's only one source, and any source on this is speculative at best. It's not a subject that's widely discussed. Dricherby (talk) 10:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently verified, and dubious on its face. It also seems to me that it violates BLP policy to list these IQ scores, five of which apply to living people, as if they had some basis in fact. --MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Melanie, or as a second choice, redirect to U.S. Presidential IQ hoax. I read the underlying study, and I didn't see anything that suggested that Dean Simonton's method of estimating presidential IQs had ever been validated (i.e. by estimating the IQs of other people based on their biographies and then having them take IQ tests, to determine the correlation between biographically estimated IQs and tested IQs). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close; see my explanation at the bottom. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Register Information System (2nd nomination). Nyttend (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

National Register Information System[edit]

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

No evidence is given in the article that the NRIS is notable apart from the National Register of Historic Places. The only reference is a link to the database itself. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. It's a new article with several references already, created by me just recently to address a known problem. See Template talk:NRISref and wt:NRHP where discussions mention the need for this article. And there are about 40,000 or more references in Wikipedia itself, and many more elsewhere, to the NRIS database. It is an obvious Keep. I am sorry to note that the deleting nominator is a named party along with myself, in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Proposed decision, where a leading proposal is for an interaction ban between the nominator and myself. I personally consider this nomination to be biased and to represent poor judgement by an involved party in arbitration. And, I don't see reference to any deletion criteria at all, much less any valid reason, in the deletion nomination. --do ncr am 23:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per my gut feeling. I might bring up some more arguments later. Ryan Vesey 23:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with National Register of Historic Places. Some of the material in this article verges on WP:NOTHOWTO; the rest should be in the NRHP article. Unless there's some kind of controversy involving the NRIS specifically, it seems unlikely that there'd be enough material on it to sustain an independent article. A merger would allow material on NRIS to be accumulated and, if enough builds up to justify it, spun off later as its own article. Ammodramus (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - looks like there are 9 refs there now. I think a small article on a big (but pretty non-controversial) database makes sense. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References have been provided to indicate the database's notability. Databases can be notable independently of the organization that runs them (the Geographic Names Information System comes to mind), and most of the refs appear NRIS-specific. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The difference, as I see it, is that the GNIS is a stand-alone database, documenting the United States. The NRIS isn't stand-alone -- it's just a part of the National Register. The NRHP is definitely notable independently of the National Park Service -- the NRIS is not notable independently of the National Register. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I can understand the desire to merge it into the organizations article, and I can see how this article needs a good strong edit, I think the references and extent of the database's use supports a separate (better) article. dm (talk) 02:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (sk is no longer timely) (edit conflict) ~~Speedy keep~~ WP:SK#1 The nomination is missing a rationale for deletion, as notability is not defined by articles on Wikipedia, and articles with reliable primary sources with notability arguments need both evidence of an attempt to find secondary sources and analysis as per WP:ATD to explain why the reliable material cannot be merged and the topic redirected. In this case the nominator is an administrator, and IMO administrators should show leadership in following the WP:BEFORE guideline. In addition, less than nine hours elapsed between the creation of the article and the filing of the AfD, so the nomination appears to be premature. Further, this is not a "high priority" topic where the AfD should continue even without community preparation in the nomination. This nomination needs to be closed today, March 11. Such a closure should be with no prejudice to a speedy renomination in three to seven days by any editor. It also seems likely that a speedy closure would tend to protect the SOV/Doncram parties from criticism by ArbCom. Unscintillating (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At the time I nominated it, there were no notability arguments ("the NRIS includes the items on the National Register" isn't an argument for notability) and there was exactly one primary source in the article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What policy or guideline says that articles need notability arguments? (Answer: not WP:N.) Unscintillating (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to National Register of Historic Places. Many of the references appear to be published by the NPS itself, and I question whether they properly establish notability. The existence of the NRIS is bound up in that of the National Register, and treating this as a section of that article seems like the best way to describe it for the time being. For a similar case, consider Chemical Abstracts Service; we don't try to maintain separate articles on that organization and its two databases. Choess (talk) 03:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To quantify things: the article as of this writing has 9 footnotes (presumably, the "9 refs" to which Smallbones refers above). One of these (note 6) is an explanatory note with no source given. Four of them (notes 1, 2, 3, and 7) come from the National Park Service. Two of them (notes 4 and 5) describe searches that were conducted in the database, but don't discuss the database itself in any detail. Note 8 is general material about the NRHP, with brief instructions for the use of NRIS to search for properties, but not going into any detail about NRIS. Note 9 is a library-catalogue entry for NRIS. None of these meets the WP:GNG standard of significant coverage in independent sources: the significant coverage is in the NPS sources, which aren't independent; the independent sources don't provide significant coverage, either individually or in aggregate. Ammodramus (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge to National Register of Historic Places which hardly mentions it. This is really an administrative aspect of the NRHP and I don't think we can say much about it beyond what we should be saying in the main article anyway. Mangoe (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no difference between this and the National Bridge Inventory, which is the comparable list of bridge for the Federal Highway Administration. 25or6to4 (talk) 01:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These cases are not entirely parallel. NRIS doesn't entirely embody the register, but it is very much an implementation of it. The there's no "registry of bridges" that the NBI implements; it is the listing and its implementation in one. Mangoe (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to National Register of Historic Places. There doesn't appear to be any significant notability apart from the NRHP. older ≠ wiser 02:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NRIS is a critically important federal database used for historical research, as established by the references. It's notable as a stand-alone article. --GrapedApe (talk) 12:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with no prejudice. In other words, no judgement of the nominator, page can be renominated again by someone else at any time, no judgement of the creator, there's no encouragement for someone else to renominate it at any time, etc — basically, please pretend that this AFD never happened. This is purely because of the rather awkward situation that's developed — since the creation of this AFD, the nominator and creator have been made subject to an interaction ban with each other. How could we have a proper AFD when the creator can't defend his creation and when the nominator can't explain why the page shouldn't remain? By the terms of the interaction ban, others may attempt to get this deleted, merged, etc. if they want, while if they do that, the creator will be free to defend the page; neither is practically possible with this AFD. Nyttend (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leamy Tato[edit]

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

Subject has no top tier MMA fights so he fails WP:NMMA, does not meet the notability criteria for kickboxers at WP:KICK, and playing in the Wellington Rugby League does not appear to meet the notability criteria for rugby league players at WP:RLN. He's clearly not notable as an MMA fighter or kickboxer, but I'm open to discussion if reliable sources show him to be a notable rugby player. Papaursa (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as an editor from WP:RL - the rugby league project - I can say that he doesn't meet any criteria to be a notable rugby league player and clearly fails WP:RLN. Mattlore (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to fall short in all three sports. Luchuslu (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - delete as completely lacking in depth independent covreage. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 01:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trumpet Mobile[edit]

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

Advert for non-notable company that uses only primary sources CorporateM (Talk) 18:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged as G11 - The article has a promotional tone and seems to focus most with their products rather than information about the company. Two Google News searches, "Trumpet Mobile mobile phone" and "Trumpet Mobile Dallas" provided either press releases or insignificant news articles about the partnerships with Radio Shack and Western Union. One of the results is even a news article from Denver, Colorado here which says they sell in "150 major U.S. markets including Denver". The article says they are based in Dallas, Texas but I've never heard of or seen them (despite that I live in the Dallas-area) and their website doesn't list a physical address, only a P. O. box address in Iowa and a 1-800 number. Searches with "Fred Haumesser" and "Dennis Henderson" provided the same results, nothing useful aside from a The Gazette news article requiring payment. After multiple different news searches, I found this recent news article from that same newspaper and this (I couldn't find the original link for the other The Gazette article). All in all, there isn't anything significant and a redirect could've been made for the parent company if an article existed. SwisterTwister talk 21:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as completely lacking in depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 21:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional and lacking secondary sources. --MelanieN (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Magomed Saadulaev[edit]

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

MMA fighter with only one top tier fight, thus failing WP:NMMA. The fact that he trains with notable fighters does not make him notable (WP:NOTINHERITED) and he lacks significant non-routine coverage. Papaursa (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NMMA. IronKnuckle (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA and the coverage of him is just normal sports reporting.Mdtemp (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Neuhausen railway station. J04n(talk page) 00:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Neuhausen am Rheinfall train collision[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was "Fails per WP:EVENT". Eeekster (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the original person who Prodded the article I tagged this as it fails per WP:EVENT. Yes this rail accident was tragic but with no deaths, and no lasting impact in the form of media or such, I do not see this passing wikipedia's notability guidelines. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep http://info.rsi.ch/home/channels/informazione/svizzera/info_on_line/2013/01/10-Sciaffusa_scontro_tra_due_treni

the article should be expanded! forget to take care of deleting the rail accidents!Robyc73 (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I would suggest that the article be merged with the Neuhausen am Rheinfall railway station article. According to subsequent media reports, the accident happened because one of the drivers went through a red signal, and the accident would likely have been prevented if the station had been fitted with the latest train detection equipment, which is scheduled to be installed there by 2020. (Detection equipment, cause.) Bahnfrend (talk) 02:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many injuries. NickSt (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a criterion for keeping? Rcsprinter (post) @ 10:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This was a very minor accident with less than 20 injuries and no deaths. Media coverage was minimal. No lasting impact. Very few sources. There are thousands of accidents like this that do not have WP articles. Does not meet WP:GNG. Contents can be merged as suggested by Bahnfrend above. --Noleander (talk) 21:27, 7 March 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, —JmaJeremy ✆✎ 21:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Neuhausen am Rheinfall railway station. No deaths and little media coverage, as evidenced by the few sources. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 23:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of sultans of Sulu#Claimants as Sultan of Sulu from 1980 - present. Sandstein 06:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paramount Sultan Ibrahim Q Bahjin Shakirullah II[edit]

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

I'm nominating this for a wider discussion. I have to somewhat explain the history of this nom. I initially came across it via the proposed deletion articles, where the biggest concern was that it was a hoax. I initially thought this was the case, but the person does exist and the limited media attention he gets uses a slightly different spelling. What makes me see him as non-notable is that he isn't the focus of any in-depth coverage in reliable sources. He's mentioned as an afterthought or an aside in most news articles and there doesn't seem to be any other type of coverage about him that can be used to show notability. His main claim to fame as far as Wikipedia goes is that he is an heir to the Sultanship of Sulu and North Borneo, and I think he's actually second in line to the throne if I'm reading this correctly. I know that occasionally the first heirs to major thrones will pass notability guidelines on this basis alone, but I'm not sure that this really falls under that criteria. The additional difficulty in this is that in the article about the Sultan of Sulu, the Philippine government hasn't actually formally recognized an official Sultan. The Sultanate of Sulu article also confirms this. So what we have here is an article about a person who claims to be an heir to a position that hasn't been officially recognized since 1986. Everyone after this point has been seen as "pretenders to the throne", regardless of birth or any other claim, legitimate or not. Part of me thinks that this could potentially be usable as a redirect, but then I have to wonder if this is really appropriate to list and redirect for every person who lays claim to the throne. The article isn't helped out my by its original format, ([1]) which served more as a platform to argue that Bahjin Shakirullah II is a more legitimate heir than the others. I just don't know what the best solution is for this. He's not notable enough for an entry in my opinion, and I'm not sure that a redirect would be the best course of action here since I have no way of knowing how many people are claiming to be heirs to the Sultanate or whether or not it's appropriate to redirect for each person. I was going to let the PROD lapse, but I felt that an AfD would be the best course of action in this case. The more eyes looking at this, the better. I'm not really arguing legitimacy of his claim as much as I am notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, I'd also like to state that although there was a recognized Sultan in the 1980s, the Sultanate was dissolved in 1917. In other words, the title is just a title and doesn't officially hold any power as far as the government goes. So again, the Sultanate has been dissolved for almost 100 years and the government stopped formally recognizing any title holders about 27 years ago.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried searching for Tagalog sources? This being a Filipino "Paramount Sultan" in question. (As well as Melayu sources maybe) I'd suppose per general notability guidelines, this man would be marginally notable for his case as a disputed heir, as reported here and also [2] For time being I'm going to say Weak keep. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 07:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that this is really a notable enough title to warrant it passing that threshold of notability. You've got to remember that there have been no official Sultans of that region since the 1980s and what I can find is rather vague on how he came to have that title or who exactly inferred it on him. I've gotten the impression that there are multiple people that are claiming to be the Sultan of this area or, as the children of those people, claiming to be the heir apparent. It's not exactly like William and Harry, as there are currently six people claiming the right to be the Sultan of this area and I'd presume that of those, at least 2-3 of them have children that could claim something similar. I had some difficulty in finding sources for him in general, which is why I'm bringing it here. The coverage here is so light that I honestly doubt that he merits his own article, as his sole claim to fame is that he is one of several people claiming to be the heir to a position that hasn't been legally recognized in about 26-27 years. I'm thinking that at best this should redirect, but I'd like to verify more about him and that he's actually a serious contender for the title of heir, as again, I've gotten the impression that of the heirs themselves, there's at least a good 2-4 of them. Not including the people claiming to be the Sultan. I'm willing to accept a redirect and merge of some details, but I don't know if that's appropriate. Remember, none of these people are really recognized by the government. I've seen similar cases such as this one from last month, this one, and this one, where the article was deleted or redirected because their relation to royalty wasn't enough to show notability in and of itself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There have been multiple similar cases, which is why I'm arguing that being a claimant to a throne isn't necessarily enough. He doesn't seem to be the main contender for this either. ([3], [4], [5], [6]) I'm not trying to be hardheaded, just saying that there's a lot of precedent for redirect or deletion when it comes to cases of people that have received little to no coverage about themselves specifically and have their notability extend from a tenuous link to royalty.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, have not found significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources of the subject. Therefore, failing WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO, deletion appears to be in order.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After second thought, if it can be verified that the individual is a claimant/pretender to the royal title, the article could be Redirected to List of sultans of Sulu#Claimants as Sultan of Sulu from 1980 - present. That being said I still have not found significant coverage of the individual, so a standalone article is not required at this time IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. We have BLPs on Pretenders to thrones like the Comte de Paris so why not one on this cheerful-looking ~~old buffer~~ gentleman. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The issue isn't whether or not the concept of a pretender to the throne might be notable, but whether this specific person is. The existence of other articles doesn't really give that great of an argument when you figure that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS might just mean that the article in question hasn't been nominated yet. Although if we're going to argue that way, I might add that almost none of the other claimants to the Sultanate have articles and don't seem to merit individual entries either. If you want to show that this person is particularly noteworthy, you should probably back it up with in-depth coverage in reliable sources. If this AfD shows that he's only notable for his claims, then perhaps this would be better as a redirect to the main article if anyone can figure out exactly how he relates to the other claimants or to the other Sultans. Also, please remember that this article was initially started extremely promotional in tone, basically being used as an advertisement to show how he's the only valid candidate for the Sultanate. I mention this because I don't know how much of the previous claims were actually legitimate. There's very little about this person on the Internet that wasn't uploaded or supplied by he or one of his camp, so take that into consideration. The more I think about it, the more this seems to be a case of Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. I'm willing to compromise and add him to the list of people claiming to be the heir to the Sultanate, but I really don't think he merits an entry to himself. Other than a few articles listing him as an aside, literally as 1-2 sentence mentions, there's absolutely nothing out there about him. His claim to the Sultanate is pretty weak and I can't quite find who exactly named him the heir to the Sultanate. The article for the Sultanate of Sulu lists about four other people who claim to either be the Sultan or have a claim to the throne. I guess what kind of bothers me about this is that it means that by the standards above, anyone can make a claim to a throne and as long as you have one article mention you (even if it's just briefly), that means you pass notability guidelines. I'm really puzzled as to why people are arguing notability based on one person claiming that he's the heir when there's little to no coverage for him and nothing to show why his claim is honestly legitimate. I wish I'd just gone with one of my first thoughts and speedied this as spam and then just redirected his name to the Sultanate of Sulu. This is a very bad precedent we're setting here, saying that all it takes to keep an article is a random claim and some trivial mentions. If this is all it takes, then we need to revisit at least a good few dozen articles on royalty (real royalty, not just potential pretenders) that were deleted because their notability wasn't inherited and trivial mentions weren't enough.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found the whole issue of the Sultanate, before you stripped the article, to be rather interesting, but I agree that it needs secondary sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The reason I stripped the article was because none of it was sourced and because it was all highly promotional. If you want me to return all of the previous stuff to the article, I will. I'm wondering if that's the only way to hammer home how non-notable this guy is and how spammy the entire mess is. It was more of a promotional resume than an actual encyclopedic article. If it's the whole pretender to the throne thing that's interesting, all of that is currently summarized in the article for the Sultanate. The big question here is that if someone is only known for making the same claim as about 4-7 other people (this includes the ones that actually claim to be the Sultan and not in line to what is now a non-existent position), you have to ask yourself: are we really doing Wikipedia any good by having a stub article in this case instead of deleting and/or redirecting it to the article that best summarizes all of this? This is one of those cases where the only information about him that's actually been backed up in RS (even if just trivially) is that he's a doctor that claims to be the heir to a Sultanate that's been dissolved for almost 100 years and the title has been unrecognized by its government for about 1/4th of that time. This isn't to say that someone claiming to be something can't be notable, but that's simply not the case here. Since all he's known for is making this claim, I'm willing to compromise and have him added to the people claiming to be in line for what is ultimately a non-existent position, but he's not even very well known when it comes to that. He's just not notable enough for his own article. While I know that being a spam magnet isn't a reason for deletion in and of itself, you need to remember that the original editor used this as a spam page to promote this person and this will continually be a spam magnet. I really and truly think that the best case scenario in this instance is to delete everything and maybe create a redirect to the appropriate page. We've had multiple AfDs where people with real and proven ties to a throne/royalty were shown to not be notable outside of their heritage and were redirected to the parent article. I know I'm being verbose, but that people are willing to argue keep for what is, at best, a tenuous and rather unproven connection to the Sultanate really bothers me. If he'd had more coverage then that'd be one thing, but he hasn't. It's stuff like this that makes me understand why so many people are getting frustrated with the notability and deletion processes here on Wikipedia and just jump ship rather than to try to argue their case. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem is the article is a BLP of an individual whom I couldn't find any significant coverage from non-primary reliable sources about. Non-verified content is subject to WP:GRAPEVINE specifically, and WP:BURDEN generally.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per RightCowLeftCoast. A pretender with insignificant levels of coverage in secondary sources isn't really notable. Such notability as exists accrues purely to the title and is not, in this case, inherited by the person pretending to it. Ray^Talk 01:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above. In time sources may appear to prove notability, but they're a long way from there so far. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:25, 10 March 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, —JmaJeremy ✆✎ 21:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of sultans of Sulu#Claimants as Sultan of Sulu from 1980 - present, not enough out there to establish standalone notability but the info is importat enough to remain elsewhere. J04n(talk page) 00:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above. The sultanate is notable enough (even after its loss of official status) to justify having a list of claimants including this one. But (especially in view of WP:INHERITED) we don't have enough evidence that this particular claimant is independently notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of sultans of Sulu#Claimants as Sultan of Sulu from 1980 - present. Subject has no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that would substantiate notability. Transfer verifiable information, if any, to a new table cell in the list of claimants. Xeltran (talk) 09:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. nomination was withdrawn, no !votes to delete. J04n(talk page) 17:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Moran (boxer)[edit]

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

Subject is a boxer who won 4 of his 29 professional fights. He fails WP:NBOX and WP:GNG since the only sources are a link to his fight record and to his death record. Papaursa (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wish to withdraw my nomination thanks to the source Michig found showing Moran fought for a world title. Papaursa (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 21:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Boxer with a significant high-level professional career including fighting for the light-heavyweight world title.[7] And if WP:BEFORE had been followed, it would have been clear that there are plenty of additional sources out there, e.g. [8], [9], [10], [11]. --Michig (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your last 4 sources are routine sports reporting--hardly enough to show notability. However, your first source showing he fought for a world title is sufficient for me. Papaursa (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. J04n(talk page) 21:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William Bennett (oboist)[edit]

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

Mr. Bennett has only received coverage due to his untimely death. no other individual symphony musicians have articles, or even a mention at the article, this is not the person to start with, and we are not a memorial site, or a news site. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed. This is a BLP1E, where the unfortunate event was his collapse on stage which led to his death. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 20:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who researches about musicians for my job, I disagree. Although possibly not a famous enough musician to warrant his own article, a stub is helpful to distinguish this oboist William Bennett from the much more famous flautist of the same name (not to mention the even-more-famous politician). Deleting this article will add unnecessarily to the confusion, since it would not be out of the question for them to be the same individual. Apologies if these comments are not formatted correctly. Jrgsf 00:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

--jrgsf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrgsf (talk • contribs) 00:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what William Bennett (disambiguation) is for, but its only for people notable enough for articles or article sections. There are probably hundreds more William Bennetts, we dont include them in this disambiguation page. If you want to add a section to the SF symphony article about notable musicians, and include this man, we can have his name redirect from the disambig page to the sf symphony article section.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a very outside chance that the subject might meet WP:GNG. Searching on slightly more useful variants of the article title (for instance, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL or Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) produces several dozen GNews hits scattered over the last forty years, though a large majority of them are behind paywalls and most are almost certain to be passing mentions in reviews of San Francisco Symphony concerts. However, a few mention that John Harbison wrote an oboe concerto about twenty years ago, commissioned by the San Francisco Symphony but with Bennett specifically in mind. While none of this comes close to guaranteeing notability, there is enough to suggest some possibility of a couple of substantial reliable sources behind those paywalls. PWilkinson (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, subject appears to have received mention in multiple non-primary reliable sources (including books); many of the sources are behind paywalls therefore I cannot verify whether the articles have the subject of this AfD as its primary subject (which some appear to do) and whether that coverage adds up to be significant coverage. I will assume good faith regarding those articles which I cannot view, and unless shown otherwise assume those articles give the subject of this AfD significant coverage.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Stronger version of RightCowLeftCoast's reasoning as I have had too much experience with such sites behind pay-locked doors. Possibly this has had a certain bend of my mind, but until someone fetches back the word from (e.g.) Groves, I'll request to keep the article. Cheers, Drieux 06:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drieux (talk • contribs)

There is no entry for this William Bennett in Grove Music Online, but they do have a higher bar for inclusion than we do. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to William Bennett (disambiguation). Stuartyeates (talk) 02:54, 10 March 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, —JmaJeremy ✆✎ 21:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I have also created a redirect to mc chris as suggested by J04n. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Race Wars[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

nn selfpublished album, no independent coverage Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources to show that it meets WP:NALBUM. --Noleander (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely lacking in depth coverage in indepeendent third party sources. If such sources get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to mc chris, agree that the album is not notable but a redirect to the artist's page is preferable to deletion. J04n(talk page) 18:46, 10 March 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, —JmaJeremy ✆✎ 21:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Uberaccount (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The King's Arms[edit]

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

This club had one mention on the BBC local news when it caught fire but I do not believe a single incident makes it notable. Nothing other than maintenance has been done for over two years. Charles (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: lack of sources to pass WP:GNG, plus full of puff and WP:OR. WP:NOT#NEWS of fire. Widefox; talk 21:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable (found next to nothing at Google News Archive), only this aside from mentions of the fire. --MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of VeggieTales characters[edit]

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

Although the series VeggieTales in marginally notable, there is no indication that this extensive list of cartoon characters is a notable WP:LISTN. Perhaps it could be greatly reduced and merged with VeggieTales. I am One of Many (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn:pbp provides the policy-based explanation that in part convinced me to withdraw this nomination. I have also been doing a lot of reading of other cases and views. Fictional characters are not, in general, held to the same standards of notability as real characters. So, I hope everyone understands that this has been a policy learning experience for me regarding fictional characters.--I am One of Many (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is nothing "marginal" about the notability of Veggie Tales, which was a "hugely successful"[12] and influential series in the Christian media world. As a review of an academic book[13] about the franchise puts it: "in 1998, Christian retailers demarcated the children's video market as "BV" and "AV": before and after Veggie Tales."[14] Without doubt, coverage of the series characters belongs in Wikipedia. I am inclined to think that this separate article is appropriate to avoid excessive clutter within the main article, though it could certainly benefit from editing. I don't know about every one of those vegetables, but GNews certainly shows plenty of coverage of Bob the Tomato and Larry the Cucumber, for example.[15] In any event, since we would be discussing merger vs. keep, but not deletion, this isn't really a discussion for AfD but rather for the normal editing process. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I meant marginal notability according to the sources cited (i.e., they are not that broad). I agree that it is notable with in a particular domain of the Christian media world. Outside of this domain, there is little evidence of notability. My thoughts are that although the list doesn't appear to meet the guidelines for notability, it could be included in a much briefer version in the main article. It may turn out in the future that independent third party sources would justify such a list, but they do not appear to exist now.--I am One of Many (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't domain-specific: either the topic VeggieTales meets the criteria or it doesn't. In fact, it does, and your argument about "a particular domain" is not a policy-based argument. On the second point, are you asserting that 1) you don't see sources cited in the article currently, or 2) you have searched for sources per WP:BEFORE and can't find any? Jclemens (talk) 02:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I wasn't very clear, but notability is domain specific in a couple of different ways. First, we have criteria for notability for different domains such as companies and academics. Second, we have to look at different domain sources for notability depending on the domain of the article we are trying to determine notability. For example, if you want to determine the notability of VeggieTales, you don't want to search Pubmed. The notability of VeggieTales is in Christian sources and not Jewish or Hindu sources. Notability isn't black or white either. That is why we have AfD. Notability, on Wikipedia, is determined by criteria for notability, sources, and consensus. VeggieTales is clearly notable within the domain of Christian sources with modest coverage outside of that domain. If I had to do it again, I would not have used the term "marginal" but rather "very domain specific". Now turning to the list of characters in VeggiTales, for a list to be notable, not every or even most of the elements of that list need to be notable, but there should be reliable independent sources that discuss the list, in this case the list of characters. I could find no such discussion and certainly no source for such extensive description of each character. The extensive descriptions themselves look like original research, but I did not bring that issue up. Keep in mind that we have a lot of users on Wikipedia that have knowledge of different domains and so whereas a given user such as myself knows some domains well, I do not know others. When an article lacks notability as it stands (e.g., has no references or the references fail to establish notability), then an editor should try to verify the article. I did that but could not for this list article. I also realized that I might not know where to look and so it is possible that it is notable. That's why I brought it here. If it is notable, people will find the sources necessary and I'll be happy about that. So far, that hasn't happened as I see it.--I am One of Many (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're reasonably clear, all right, but utterly wrong. And when I say "utterly wrong", I mean that your response above should be sufficient to close this deletion discussion as unfounded. First, notability exists independently of the references that do or do not exist in the article, based on the existence of coverage, full stop. Second, it's not too hard to actually search for sources. Try the name of one of the characters towards the top of the list, for instance: Say, Bob the tomato. You may get a different list of references than I do, but I see The Orlando Sentinel, The Tennessean, Chicago Sun-Times, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Salt Lake Tribune, Chicago Tribune... and that's just the first page. Non-paywalled sources include New York Times, Herald-Journal, Entertainment Weekly, Zap2it, Broadcasting & Cable, and Animation Magazine. What do all these sources have in common? Not a one of them is religious press, which brings me to the third point: Niche notability (or lack thereof) is irrelevant when a topic is extensively covered in mainstream media. There are a ton more Christian Post and Christianity Today articles, which everyone who wants to can find through the same Google News search. Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with you that Veggietales is notable, but notability is not inherited and it is the notability of list that is questionable as I see it (whether it is will be determined by consensus). The articles you cite say little about the characters. They don't, as I see it, establish the notability of the extensive list and description that appears to have come from original research.
I also disagree with you about notability. If notability existed independent of references, then why include references in articles? We do it because references help establish notability. Secondly, notability on Wikipedia is determined by consensus. We see arguments about whether an article is notable or some part of an article is notable here and elsewhere on Wikipedia. As you well know, sometimes people simply can't come to an agreement about notability even with the same references.
Also, please note that I suggested two alternatives: merging and reducing it to a more independently sourced notable list. The latter might just include main characters for which there are descriptions.
Finally, it doesn't matter what either you or I think about the notability of the list, it will be decided by consensus. If the consensus is to keep, that is fine with me. Just as long as the process of consensus works, Wikipedia will do well.--I am One of Many (talk) 07:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I found List of VeggieTales characters. This looks like just what is needed for this article. Do you think this is a reasonable reference?--I am One of Many (talk) 07:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oops: The book sold on Amazon is from Bookvika Publishing, which simply copies Wikipedia articles and sells them as books.--I am One of Many (talk) 08:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that it doesn't matter what you think, because you're not thinking policy. You lack the multiple years of studying, applying, improving, and evolving the policies related to fictional elements that I have. And while what I think matters, it matters not because I think it, but because I intimately understand both the written policy and its consensus application, on the basis of participation in scores of similar debates, on the basis of outcomes of similar list article work, and so forth. For example, the idea that "notability is not inherited" does not apply to a character list that contains multiple notable characters themselves; if you knew policy, you would know this. Jclemens (talk) 04:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm learning. I learn from every interaction I have here. I'm learning from you as well. I realize that how policy is written and how it is interpreted are different things and I do want to learn both. Now, let me explain how I interpreted written policy. In WP:LISTN is written:

"Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." [bold is my emphasis]

I interpreted this to mean that the group of characters must be notable (a few individually is enough), so reliable independent articles discussing the characters was important. If I understand you correctly, if any series is notable, then the group of characters are notable and justify a stand-alone article? For example, something I'm more familiar with, Star Trek: The Original Series has lists, but not a separate list of characters. Would it be appropriate to make a stand-alone list of characters? If you convince me that notability of lists of characters is inherited (by interpretation of policy) from series, then I will change my position to keep. Please keep in mind that I'm here to cooperate, I'm more interested in saving articles than deleting them, and more than willing to admit I'm wrong when I'm shown that I'm wrong.--I am One of Many (talk) 06:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we have character lists for plenty of other fictional franchises. There are plenty of individually notable "episodes" (really, separate works with the same format), and two feature length movies, and the characters overlap between them, so a list of characters is entirely consistent with our common outcomes. Jclemens (talk) 02:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since I created this particular page, I think, and I'm the one who has predominantly been baby-sitting the overall Veggie pages over the past 2-3 years, I obviously have a vested interest, but my opinion is 1) its obviously notable despite the attempts to make it a fringe topic by some people and 2) if the decision was made to boot this particular page, you'd then have to boot AT LEAST a hundred other pages that ONLY list TV episodes/characters/locations/etc - because there are alot and very very few of them have any references at all let alone 3rd party. So I guess my question is "Where do you draw the line?" Obviously "everyone else does it" is not a viable reason for keeping the page, but it's something that needs to considered because deleting a page like this "should" result in other dominios falling.Ckruschke (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

The gold-standard would be the List of Sesame Street Muppets, but a list doesn't need to reach 5% of the references in the Muppet list. Personally, I would keep the list simply because it is cute, but cuteness is not a Wikipedia criterion. Arxiloxos references a book on Google [16]. It doesn't appear to focus on the list per se, but could any of the references in it be used to source the list?--I am One of Many (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken - I (nor any other contributors) have worked to try to reference the information contained on the page. It has a posted "this page needs references" tag, but I've never had the time to pump it up. I guess if I'd realized the page could be deleted because of this, I might have given it more thought. Ckruschke (talk) 19:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

Keep. Reminds me of when a noobie tried to delete Procol Harum. VeggieTales is exceptionally well-known, and a list of its characters avoids the worse alternatives. Bearian (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:LISTN, a topic is considered notable "if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", which is the case here. Yes, we could opt to reduce the list down and merge it with the main VeggieTales article, but this is not a requirement. And saying that VeggieTales is of "marginal" notability seems rather point-y. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 03:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: legitimate content fork from VeggieTales, and Larry and Bob both are notable in their own right p b p 23:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. JJ98 (Talk) 06:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 17:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Milwaukee Shakespeare[edit]

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

Has been tagged under WP:GNG for 5 years, and the only real outside sources I can find only relate to the closing of the group and not any notable works it produced. Ducknish (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. 19:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep - You must not have looked closely because a Google News search listed some productions here, here, here (also mentions closing), here, here (debut production), here, here, here, here and among others. (payment required). This supports Chris Abele as one of the founders and this provides lots of details behind the closing including that Abele and his family foundation had been the primary funders. I also found an entire article about hiring Suozzi here and another article here from 2000 when the company was founded. This suggests some of the members resurfaced as "The Artists Formerly Known As Milwaukee Shakespeare". The results continue for a few pages until it starts showing irrelevant results with a few relevant ones. It mainly received local coverage from Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel but I found a Chicago Tribune article here and a Playbill here. I attempted searching for any other articles at the Playbill website but I haven't found any and searching at the website only provides recent articles. I think the company would've probably received more attention if they had continued longer but I think this at least gives them some notability especially local (received coverage for several of their productions). Several of these articles support the Peck School of the Arts performances and this mentions the group gave all of their assets to the university when they closed to fund the university's future Shakespeare productions. SwisterTwister talk 20:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was a local theatrical company. They had a debut, and have had a final performance. Their performances were noticed by the hometown paper, and some of their alumni went into touring companies, and Playbill did a writeup on them once, and they did get some regional coverage. They were funded by a local theatre enthusiast. One hates to be unkind to a worthy local enterprise like this, but all of these things are exactly the things you'd expect a local theatre group to have done. Indeed, sources verify that they existed, but I don't see any of the verifiable facts about this group giving rise to the lasting significance that would make them an encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Not notable enough as a group. If people associated with the group achieve notability, it might be possible to cover them in a section but otherwise delet. --DHeyward (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Short-lived theater company; all the coverage I found was from a single source, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel,[17] while GNG requires multiple sources, preferably including some from outside the immediate area. I suppose it could be redirected to Milwaukee#Culture, where it currently has a mention, but I prefer deletion. --MelanieN (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 17:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HTTrack[edit]

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

PROD contested on the grounds that "Since the article discusses a minor software project, it is unlikely there will ever be citable sources other than the project itself". Since that was the reason for the PROD in the first place - complete lack of independent sources - the editor who removed the PROD appears to be agreeing with it. Whatever, as an unsourced and apparently unsourceable article, I'm afraid policy means we can't keep it. Guy (Help!) 18:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Over a dozen sources (books, plus technical reports from various universities and government agencies) were posted on the talk page in response to the PROD. A Google Scholar search returns hundreds more scholarly articles. Even if no single source discusses the software in great detail, the sheer number of them should provide more than enough reliably supported facts for an encyclopedia article. I get the impression that this AfD is based solely upon the misguided edit summary of the user who removed the PROD, and not any duly diligent attempt to examine the conspicuously posted sources, or to find further ones. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I'm not up to date, have we now replaced "has been the primary focus of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources" with "has been listed in lots of directories and lists"? Guy (Help!) 16:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're characterizing all the sources listed on the talk page and Google Scholar as "directories and lists" that shows that you still haven't examined them. Please check more carefully before nominating articles in the future; nominators are expected to do at least a cursory search for sources. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a couple of secondary book references to the article that discuss the software in detail (a few pages in each book). Along with the the references provided by the author of the software on the article's talk page, e.g., a paragraph in [18], there are multiple reliable sources, at least a couple in depth, that discuss the software. That the software is used by the Library of Congress is an indication of significance. The makes the topic notable under general notability guidelines WP:GNG and software notability guidelines, WP:NSOFT. The article itself is not too promotional; I removed a peacock term. Notability of the topic and no major problems with the article suggest that this article be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mark's additions. —Theopolisme (talk) 01:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ignoring the double vote, and the non-policy based keeping, as well the obvious self-admitted WP:COI/promotional here. Read WP:NOT#WEBHOST. Secret ^account 03:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Media Caucus[edit]

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

This is an affiliate of the College Art Association and seems to be a very loose organisation based around a regular magazine. Membership is in fact a mailing list with no membership fees or requirements (judging from their website). The article is almost entirely unsourced and came to my attention when an IP updated it with the (unsourced) details of the 2013 conference. I can see little independent coverage online about the Caucus. Maybe the best thing to do would be to give a mention in the CAA article? Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to College Art Association, this organization doesn't seem to have independent notability. There are sources on Google News, but they seem to refer to two other New Media Caucuses run by the Republic Party and the WGA. The only source I found for this New Media Caucus was this trivial mention. Most of the sources provided in the article are not independent, the only good one is this which mostly discusses the CAA. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From what the author says below, there may not be a suitable article to merge to. Sionk (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

− I really hope this is the right place to discuss this with you / I know there are many WP rules, I've never had an article marked for deletion, so I'm trying to get up to speed quickly - if there is a more appropriate location/format/method for response, please let me know. Independent Articles: the latest event at the National Academy is being reviewed / I'm waiting for an independent article (that I was interviewed for) to be published to add it to our list of references - I'm uncertain on the timing, but it appears immanent (2-3 weeks). Our showcase at the national academy museum and school is a hugely significant step. The National Academy (founded in 1825, long history of recognizing painters) began inducting practitioners of new media art this past year, and partnered with us in the presentation of our annual showcase. I know that notability cannot be inherited, but one of the roles of the National Academy in particular is to independently recognize contributions in the field. The fact that they would embrace us and allow us to present in their museum (next door to the Guggenheim) is a very big deal.

References: i've added several references, and I am working to compile more, though I am trying to be stringent to live up to the WP guidelines. We've put energy into maintaining this page for several years, but I can see now that we need to be better about providing sources. i didn't realize how quickly this review process would occur, and hope that we can be afforded some time to compile a more thorough set of references. Size & Growth: The NMC is the fastest growing CAA Affiliate. With 900+ members, we add ~100 - 150 new members per year. We've done this regularly for the past six years. This number represents an enormous percentage of the individuals teaching new media art in higher education. I'm researching how best to cite this. If there are suggestions, I'd be very open to them. I know this from the NMC original research conducted that compiled all schools / programs where new media art is taught at the undergrad, grad, and doctoral levels from around the world, and can verify from my membership list where people are studying / teaching / researching / practicing. Again, any suggestions on how to translate this into a viable source would be appreciated.

Membership Fees: While we don't have general membership fees, we instituted a new constitution/bylaws in 2011 that established a 20 member (elected) board of directors. board members are required to pay dues ($75). Because New Media Art is a complex, diverse and interdisciplinary field - and many of its practitioners are young academics, we've actively and repeatedly decided not to institute general membership fees. This means that all of the events that we've planned have been in partnership with the host institutions - institutions which have donated the use of their facilities, staff, and resources. Considering the list of partnerships includes the School of Visual Arts, The Los Angeles Center for Digital Art, the Southern California Institute of Architecture, Columbia College Chicago, Hunter College and the aforementioned National Academy. This has not come easily and represents the efforts of hundreds of volunteer members over the course of ten years. Again, I understand that notability isn't inherited from these institutions, but I am suggesting that the fact that they have genuinely invited us to work with them (we've always had space/ resources donated as we have extremely limited budget) is a marker of our significance.

Journal: I realize we can't self-cite our Journal Articles, but I think its important to note that our Peer Reviewed Journal (above called a magazine, which is slightly different) - has a 13 member international editorial board, and is one of the sites of production of scholarship for this field. Realizing that there are few forums for scholarship and recognition for new media art in particular, we established the journal eight years ago to provide a forum to increase rigor and promote growth. Again, I'm at a loss for how to reference this, but I'm privy to how 60-70% of our new members cite the journal as the reason for their interest and involvement in joining. There are not a lot of other journals in the field. However, I should like to point out that recently, the International Symposium for Electronic Art reached out -to us- to publish articles related to their 2012 Symposium in Albuquerque (occurred at several dozen prominent cultural institutions in ABQ for 10 days). This publication will occurs in Sept., 2013. At the moment the relationship is public knowledge, and we are in the process of collecting materials for review, editing, and publication.

− I really want to make this work and will help any way I can. Any advice would be sincerely appreciated. Sincerely, Paul Catanese - nmc president — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.251.243 (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: the ISEA-Web organization published the announcement about the partnership here: http://www.isea-web.org/2013/02/isea2012-participants-who-did-not-publish-in-isea2012s-conference-proceedings/ -paul

Also - I'm not sure how to translate the numerous citations from tenured/tenure-track professors who list their NMC membership on their vitae - I realize a list of names is difficult to discern. But our significance within this small field is based on the strength of our membership - the fact that leading practitioners are members, and board members must contribute somehow to our nature. If it would be helpful, i can provide a list of particularly notable individuals and show how they are involved / related. As a professional organization, the fact that the actual professionals from the field (of new media art) are members and participate in our activities, I hope, is significant. -paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.251.243 (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article's problems had been flagged-up since October 2011 but no improvement was forthcoming. Unfortunately, to prove an organisation is important, we need to see evidence of coverage about it from secondary sources (with a level of independence and editorial scrutiny). We can't put much weight at all on the fact the organisation itself says it is important. Sionk (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An option may be to move the article to a user's sub-page so they can improve it (as and when reliable secondary sources becoem available). If the user was you, you'd need to register a Wikipedia account. However, as the NMC president you have an obvious conflict of interest, so it wouldn't be a great solution at all. Sionk (talk) 02:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References on academic organizations in the arts are not always covered in mainstream sources; I'm trying to assist and contribute by employing my knowledge of the field to find references. The "unanswered flag" seemed like a good opportunity for me to do some work and assist - now, it seems my efforts have made things much worse. I'm confused as to how my adding references to third party articles is a conflict of interest? I did not provide leads to any of the dozens of -peer reviewed- articles from our Journal, because that seemed clearly like bootstrapping. I've added four so far, and have two additional ones forthcoming (unless I shouldn't?) For example, the leonardo education and art forum wrote a review of one of our sponsored panels, claiming it was the most controversial at the (chicago 2010) conference; this was published in The Newsletter of the International Society for the Arts, Sciences and Technology and of l'Observatoire Leonardo des Arts et Technosciences; additionally, as I mentioned, there is a forthcoming article regarding our event at the National Academy. I was interviewed after the event, and when the article is published, if its innappropriate for me to be the one making the edit, perhaps there is a wikipedia editor i can forward the information to for inclusion? Clearly, my lack of understanding of wikipedia policies is partially to blame, but i have been trying to familiarize myself while on an abrupt timeline. I want to be helpful, since I have knowledge of the subject area.

Relatedly, I think its worthwhile to understand that the relationship between CAA and its affiliates is different than what has previously been implied by others' posts (above). In particular, NMC is an organization founded independently of CAA, and after applying to CAA, we were granted affiliate society status. CAA is the premier professional society for higher education in the visual arts, and they don't grant affiliate society status for every organization. Considering that they were under no external pressure to recognize us, I would think is a marker of external recognition. I'd at least like to hear how that level of review and independence is not a valid marker of notability? Following up on this point, the CAA website (http://www.collegeart.org/affiliated/) outlines the following information regarding organizations that are interested in becoming affiliates: ″CAA welcomes as affiliated societies groups of art professionals and other organizations whose goals are generally consonant with those of CAA, with a view toward facilitating intercommunication and mutual enrichment. It is required that a substantial number of the members of such groups will already be members of CAA.

To be recognized by CAA as an affiliated society, a group must be national in scope and must present evidence that:

   It is primarily, or in large part, committed to the serious practice and advancement of the visual arts or to the study of some broad, major area of the history of art
   It possesses a formal organizational structure, that is, elected officers, an identifiable membership, and signs of ongoing activity such as a newsletter, periodical, exhibition record, or other documentation″  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.251.243 (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I'd like to hear a response to my earlier point regarding the fact that our membership, at 900+, represents a significant portion of the professoriate teaching in this field. This can be determined by examining the number of fine arts departments teaching new media art, and comparing those individuals to our membership. i'm not at all certain what the best way ro accomplish that is. There doesnt seem to be guidelines for academic professional societies, if i've missed them, please direct me.

At this point, I'm at a bit of a loss for what to do. Is there any role for me? -paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.251.243 (talk) 05:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I made an account. (I don't know how to find the conversation you started w/me Sionk) (Pcatanese (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

While I respect the AFD request given the guidelines, I would like to add the following: 1: The NMC should NOT be placed within CAA, as it is only an affiliate and not part of CAA proper. This would require the addition of many other affiliates that are not part of CAA, like Public Art Discourse, Radical Art Caucus, and many others. It is its own entity and should be cited as such. This would cause a great deal of unneccessary complication.

2: The NMC is not "loosely organized", as it is a group with a full set of bylaws, a Board of Directors, and several committees.

3: It also deserves disambiguation from other New Media Caucuses, such as the Republican New Media Caucus.

4: The problem may stem from citability, but in my opinion, the New Media Caucus entry has real credibility as an organization.

5: I suggest that the Executive Board of the NMC be given solutions and a timetable to complete to the Wikipedia community standards (preferably 90 days+).

    5a: I feel that the group has veracity, and should be allowed to find solutions before going AFD.

Patlichty... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patlichty (talk • contribs) 21:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - casting my 'vote' as nominator. From the explanation given by the NMC President above, I can't see a suitable article to redirect to. Because the main author has a very significant COI, I can't see much benefit in allowing time to userify it. Being a 'credible' organisation isn't sufficient reason on its own to have an article on Wikipedia. Sionk (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

(1) I am discouraged by lack of assistance from nominator w/regard to direction regarding proper procedures for adding references regarding our 'notability' Several references - the most significant of which is an article appearing on Rhizome.org have already been added to the article. For those unfamiliar, Rhizome.org is the foremost organization in new media art, and is additionally part of the New Museum of Contemporary Art in NYC. The article addresses the historic occasion of the CAA (premier visual arts organization, 100 years old) for recognizing NMC as an affiliate; the article continues by outlining the conceptual territory that NMC is seeking to examine, and reviews several events during one of CAA's conference where this agenda was examined. This reference _alone_ should count for our notability, and yet it has not been adequately addressed or taken into consideration in any way.

(2) Several other notable references exist, found via thorough searching. For example, in Leonardo, appears an article which characterizes our sponsored panel: “New Media/New Terrain: Pioneering a Ph.D. in Creative Research” as "One of the more controversial panels" at the 2010 conference. ISAST / Leonardo is an internationally recognized, 40+ year old organization which is focused on Art, Technology & Science collaborations - their notice of NMC events is not insignificant. This, and other references have _not_ been added to the article yet, per note #3. (The reference is: 'The Newsletter of the International Society for the Arts, Sciences and Technology and of l'Observatoire Leonardo des Arts et Technosciences. By: Quillan, Kathleen. Leonardo. 2010, Vol. 43 Issue 4, p416-419.')

(3) Nominator characterizes my involvement as "main author" and cites this as conflict of interest. I am _not_ the main author of the article, but freely admit that I sought to edit the article in order to add references, per the flag on the article requesting 'needs references'. Since many of the references are not 'findable' via casual search (e.g. google, bing) - some assistance with specialized sources seems required - which I am willing to do - even if it means working with others to vet the process. I am disheartened that upon learning that providing references is frowned upon, and that I've been provided no guidance regarding how to collaborate with others to provide input on this process.

(4) I am acting in good faith and am uninitiated in wikipedia editing protocols. I have spent the better part of the weekend learning about these protocols, and would appreciate good faith in return. A different commenter (above) offered a middle-ground solution of providing "a timetable to complete to the Wikipedia community standards (preferably 90 days+)." - I can appreciate the balanced viewpoint (that the article needs to meet WP community standards), but that more time is required, especially since the editing process likely will need to be done in coordination w/third-party editors to ensure neutrality.

(finally) I would appreciate hearing input from additional editors regarding this case (is that the right word?), so that this process feels like it is a consensus emerging from the viewpoints of several individuals, rather than just the views of Sionk and I. Again, I'm aware that I'm likely demonstrating how completely green I am here, but I'd love to hear input from additional individuals, not to mention, some clarification about how a process like this can possibly move forward on the say-so of a single individual. (Pcatanese (talk) 03:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

As I've mentioned at User talk:24.12.251.243, the Rhizome.org 'article' is in fact part of a community forum discussion, therefore not considered a reliable source. Re getting a wider viewpoint, the discussion wil more than likely be extended beyond 7 days if there's no clear consensus for a particular action. Sionk (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if there's an acceptable way to copy over the few notes from the IP talk page - but I do understand the point you're making. I'm beginning to better understand how this works / what we're looking for - and yes, I am searching through (offline) journals, announcements, etc. to find suitable references (leonardo is one) - though I'm working on finding more. Thank you for pointing out your note re: the Rhizome article; I guess that its a good secondary source then?

I've been trading emails with the editors from an online journal that covered our event at the National Academy. I'm trying to find out what their timetable for publication is - my understanding is its in the "week or two" range. I don't want to publicly announce the name of the journal, but this is more out of respect for their editorial process - I know that seems weak, but I can provide it via email or some other secure form if one is available / if that is necessary - to a certain degree, I suppose its moot until they publish.

I've spent some time reading your other articles to get a sense of your approach - this has been very helpful. I still believe that with some time and digging, we'll be able to find the references that are being sought out to establish notability. However, I'll also offer that I can see immediately that editing is going to be needed - and that some items might better be located on the NMC website in the form of a "history" section, which I can help facilitate. Still, I think that there should be some manner of noting the notable events that have been covered (Jessica Walker's panel at CAA2010 addressed in Leonardo, NMC Showcase CAA 2010 addressed on official CAA Conference Blog, NMC Live Cinema Summit addressed on official CAA Conference Blog, etc.).

The more difficult question I have is how to address the "CAA recognizing NMC" idea. I know that CAA didn't write a journal article on this, but the notability rules _seem_ like they are flexible enough to make accommodations for multiple paths to notability. I'm not saying that we're inheriting notability - I'm saying that (in the field of visual art practice) CAA is genuinely in a position to _grant_ affiliation such that notability is implied / they are one of the "high courts" if you will. Can't an action of this ilk "count" towards our balance? From my perspective, the tipping point is that this isn't just any affiliation, but it is a historic, hard-won precedent for CAA (as a well established visual arts org) granting special status (by special, I mean: any status) to a media-arts org. Its important because there is a real active area of dialogue regarding the contemporary/fine/visual and the media/newmedia/art+tech+science spheres / figuring out their shared terrain. There are _many_ in both spheres that aren't certain of the overlap, trajectory, or in some cases the necesity for the spheres. Not too long ago, this wasn't even a conversation that the contemporary/fine/visual sphere would entertain.

Additionally, we've had tremendous growth the last 6 years, which has come to the notice of CAA also.

(thank you, Sionk) for clarifying that there may be more time provided to work on this. I really appreciate your patience and guidance - and it _did_ start to dawn on me that _you_ might be the person who could help w/vetting the third-party sources. Perhaps this sounds strange, but it hadn't entirely sunk in that there isn't a star-chamber watching all this. Its quite empowering via "neutralizing" to understand that this is a partnership.

BTW: If there is a future for this article, the other editor's note regarding the need for a disambiguation page might be a very good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcatanese (talk • contribs) 19:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC) (19:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Keep -- For three reasons: 1) because it is notable (or at least more notable than the 200 odd high schools in Kansas, minor Antarctic mountains, or 10th magnitude unconfirmed brown dwarfs that get Wikipedia articles); 2) because there seems to be some evidence for notability, it's just not in the hands of those versed in Notability Standards; and 3) because this kind of over-zealous pursuit of notability is just the kind of thing that discourages part time editors like me (200 edits over 8 years). To be honest, if this gets deleted, I will probably give up on Wikipedia editing and turn my attention elsewhere. I thought Wikipedia was trying to be more encouraging not actively discouraging?Grhabyt (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if Wikipedia becomes a free bulletin board for every minor organisation, I'll probably give up too :) The authors were reminded of the problems 12 months ago but chose to ignore them. Sionk (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment Sionk, I think that your response is revealing. You seem to be genuinely interested in improving WP, and I definitely think that is a good cause. I'm not certain if you've ever taught, but if you ever have, you would know how amazing _and_ damaging WP can be for student research. I have, and because of that, improving quality certainly holds a high place in my heart. I've always applauded WP for its quick healing (I've done analysis on this), as well as its ability to fill in the "gap" in knowledge between the rigidity of printed encyclopedia and the free-for-all of the open internet. The notability kludge needs further efforts of sharp minds such as yours to ensure that the balance does not eliminate what is genuinely valuable in that latter statement. In reviewing your editing history, especially with regard to the large numbers of articles for deletion 'cases' that you've advanced, I wonder if you ever question the notability guidelines themselves? It seems it is an area of contention on WP itself, which I've begun to investigate, for reasons you will no doubt, understand. I'll admit that I'm puzzled regarding the deletionists vs. inclusionists binary. I offer the following jibe ironically - (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL), as you will notice _you_ are not actually notable - perhaps you are not actually qualified to edit so narrowly! Mind you, I realize that may be received slightly incendiary, but please realize that I intend it respectfully - to encourage you to consider that the deletionists vs. inclusionists actually a distraction from the genuine issue of a desire for quality control bumping up a currently flawed approach. Namely, the notability guidelines are well intentioned, but poorly/vaguely developed and implemented, and more fully establishing those could help reduce a great deal of frustration and lost effort on the part of an immense number of well-intentioned individuals, from named experts to anonymous experts; named amateurs to anonymous amateurs; school-children to college professors, etc. As a leader of a reasonably complex volunteer organization that you've at least agreed exists, I can promise you (and whoever else might read this) that harsh implementation of poorly written guidelines is a sure path to a self-amplifying mechanism that will further alienate those who might provide a balanced voice in this hallowed... err.. webpages. Wouldn't you rather improve the guidelines so that there are fewer AFD discussions necessary? To me, an AFD debate represents those moments when the guidelines of WP fail / allow break down. It is a last-step at attempting to impose order to chaos, and in at least some cases, I would argue, the AFD process may be used to "tamp down" that which it doesn't understand - as much as it "eradicates" articles of low quality. You seem able to articulate arguments well enough that I'd be curious to hear your thoughts about the notability guidelines themselves. Anyway, I realize this another one of my relatively long comments that I am more than happy to share with you. (20:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)) (Pcatanese (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)) (Pcatanese (talk))[reply]

As you say, AfD should be one of the last resorts. Therefore, rather than pick apart my edit history, please stick to discussing and/or improving New Media Caucus. The Wikipedia notability guidelines have been developed and amended over many years and, in general, they serve the purpose well. If anyone wants to argue for an exception to the guidelines, they're more than welcome. Sionk (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't request that I do not look at your public edit history - perhaps you should not edit so much if you don't want your history viewed. Particularly since I was doing that research as a method of better understanding your intentions and biases. I am interested in understanding your point of view, and hoped that examining _other_ cases where perhaps I would be less likely to lose objectivity, I would be able to learn how to interpret your arguments. I've seen evidence that you appear to apply the notability guidelines in a rather narrow manner throughout your edit history, and I thought that was something I would point out to you, since _you_ are of course unable to be objective about yourself. (Pcatanese (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

You're more than welcome to look at my edit history. What I said was this isn't the place here to analyse it. This is an Articles for Deletion discussion, discussing New Media Caucus. Using an AfD discussion to have general conversations about something else could be seen as disruptive, so it would be better if you spent your time improving the article. Sionk (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I'm confused, I made it clear I was leaving a comment. Please assist with best practices whenever you're ready. You said "Therefore, rather than pick apart my edit history, please stick to discussing and/or improving New Media Caucus." I am trying to improve the NMC page. One of the ways that I am doing that is trying to learn more about the sole individual who seems to take issue with the NMC page, and genuinely understand your point of view. What is clear and obvious from your editing history is that you have a biased method of applying the poorly formed notability guidelines. I should think you of all people wouldnt be swayed by how long or how many individuals contributed to them, one can see by _reading_ the guidelines that they are not entirely well balanced - and they lead to much frustration. I assumed that the comment flag would indicate that this is, in fact, a comment. Anyway, I think that your bias, clearly documented in your editing history is completely relevant to this particular 'case'. However, it has no bearing on the 'votes' that aren't 'votes' that are counted as 'votes' in the stats for the AFD. Anyway, I just want to let you know that I find your passion for wikipedia inspirational. That is - I'm inspired to help ensure that editors with narrowness/bias issues are balanced out via additional voices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcatanese (talk • contribs) 21:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment finished adding several references. Understand not ideal. sought best practices from nominator, was not given feedback as to how to provide references. Please see article for several additional references. more forthcoming.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

question Is there some way to have this re-listing listed in a place where editors who are familiar with the visual arts, with particular interest towards academic professional societies / to alert editors keen on those types of topics so they might have a chance to weigh in? I'm pretty new here, but getting the drift that these discussions can be cross-listed somehow. If there are articles I should read to learn this, I can do the work, just need a little advice on where to get started. Thanks in advance! (Pcatanese (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Keep OK, so for the NMC to be notable it needs two things: The first is to "have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". The NMC is probably known by about 5000 people in about 20 countries. Is this enough? There is no quantitive measure involved in the guidelines, so I only have other WP articles to go by. Let's look at some. There are many articles for different American High Schools (more than 200 in Kansas alone) in WP. Each of these are known by more than 5000 people, but most of those people are "involved", not many are outside of Kansas, and none of these schools can really claim "significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". So in relative notability the NMC is ahead of (if I extrapolate correctly) at least a couple thousand articles about different US High Schools. Another example I mentioned in earlier discussion is unconfirmed brown dwarf stars, several of which have their own articles in WP. These are part of a very narrow specialty of astronomy. Far fewer than 5000 people (probably fewer than 500) will know of them (though you might get a dozen countries represented), is this "significant attention"? And with so few people involved, does that constitute "the world at large"? So compared with numbers of existing WP articles, the New Media Caucus is more notable by this standard.

The second thing that is needed is "evidence from reliable independent sources to gauge this attention". Fair enough. Again, this isn't quantified, so we only have other WP articles to go by. So let's compare the NMC against the first high school that comes up when I search for Kansas High Schools which is Marion High School (Kansas). First we need to ask what are the sources and then we need to ask whether they are reliable and independent. The MHS article has 12 references and lists three sources. Of the twelve references, 11 are websites (the school, the City of Marion, plus database references to the school, broken links) and one is one of the three sources. The websites are substantially smaller and more auto-generated than those referenced on the NMC article. There are no mentions of the notability of MHS from any except the school's own site and the City of Marion's site (which, given that it is produced by an alumni of the High School, is not independent). Of the three sources, all are published in Marion County, Kansas, one is a self-published pamphlet from Marion, one is published by the Marion Historical Society (likely all of these authors are alumni of the High school as it is the only one in the county), and one is a gazetteer from 1902 that functions like a local newspaper. None go much beyond saying that the High School exists. So, to the extent that they say that a high school exists in Marion County KS, they should probably be considered reliable. But they are not independent. As such, their opinions on notability of a very low standard. If you go to the second high school on the search list, the results are the same. In fact nearly all the WP articles on specific high schools in Kansas are 1) less notable that the NMC; 2) more poorly sourced than the NMC article.

Next lets try Unconfirmed Brown Dwarf Stars. Going down this list, the first, Gliese 22 has no justification for notability, and its sources are only two links, both broken. So, even I, as a serious inclusionist, would fail that one. The second,HD 3346, contains two sources, neither peer-reviewed, with one source quoting the other source (which is strictly online), saying that a team of two astronomers think there might be a planet around it. I've discussed the fail of this on notability above, but now the only source is a single online mention.

My point in all this is that compared to many tens of thousands of WP articles, the NMC article shows evidence of both notability and decent sourcing. What is more, the authors are actively adding sources and, in good faith, trying to adhere to higher standards than many other articles are held to. Grhabyt (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have made two 'keep' recommendations so you should strike one out. Your long comment above is simply an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, which isn't really valid. Sionk (talk) 01:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment FWIW, the stats seem to filter out duplicates. I'm still working on additional references; hard to do anything on this front during the week w/work, etc. anyway, the link you give aWP seems to have thought of everything already. (Pcatanese (talk) 02:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

comment Sorry, I thought the vote tally restarted after a relisting. I've unstarred my keep in the first listing (is that enough?). In terms of saying that I have an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. That is part of my argument. But that shouldn't be a problem. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS says "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." Which is what it seem you are doing.Grhabyt (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment gosh, Sionk... This editor makes a good point... Other stuff exists is not a conclusive test. Its interesting, don't you think? One of the things that occurs to me is that this notability vagueness, if applied narrowly, really starts to favor "newsworthiness" which doesnt seem to me to be the same as "encyclopediac"... Its amazing how specific discussions like these, a live fire test, if you will, of the notability "guideline" where it seems to fail its own purposes (Pcatanese (talk) 01:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

question so - what's the deal with "votes" in this forum exactly? I've read a bunch of different things - there's the consensus idea, which seems fundamental to WP, and then there's the votes idea, which seems pretty clear - though at odds with the consensus thing - unless its just a straw poll?(Pcatanese (talk) 02:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Sionk (talk) 01:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'comment oh - thank you! this is what I meant / wasn't sure how to do this. (Pcatanese (talk) 02:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

comment being new here, I've been trying to come to terms with what I percieve as a fundamental flaw in the notability guidelines with regard to how to establish notability, especially in cases such as this one that involve a professsional academic society. Its been pointed out that this forum is not the correct location to lodge such arguments, though I find it difficult to understand why the "lived" editorial trenches aren't perhaps the best place to work things out. Regardless, I recently came across this note regarding the (spirit of policy) and wonder if it offers an honorable path forward in lieu of debating the merits of the notability guidelines? Namely, at the end of the day, we're still talking about an international academic professional society that has 910+ members, mostly academics and professors, who choose to contribute their energies on a volunteer basis to further the discipline and practice of new media art. This society has been recognized by the premier academic professional society in the visual arts (CAA), which is a major achievement. I agree that more references would help flesh out the article, and I hope we can all work together to find them. But this process seems time consuming for all of us, and I wonder if there might be some other path for moving forward? ▹ (pcatanese (talk) at 04:33 on March 13, 2013) 04:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think a good case for at least trying to work out the kinks is given by people like Grhabyt. The NMC is more notable than many of the minor entries on other subjects, and is of great use to rising academics, and Pcatanese makes a point regarding giving it more time and the 'spirit of the law'. I think it would be brilliant if Sionk could work with Pcatanese and Grhabyt in making the NMC entry suitable. Having people more experienced in the art of Wikipedia helping those sless so is a great service. - Patlichty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.160.39 (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment If you Google "new media caucus" -republican -guild there are more than a thousand links. Even on page 50 of the results, most are still references to the organization in the article. These are references in people's resumes, newsletters, announcements in websites. Not the stuff of proper citations, but there certainly are a lot of them. Grhabyt (talk) 16:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like you say, its all 'stuff on the internet', mentions on personal websites and CV's, anouncements on Rhizone etc. None of this makes the organization notable in the WP:GNG sense. Sionk (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Part of the point of WP:GNG is that there is a trade off between number and quality. Just a couple of "golden" sources should be enough to justify notability; but low quality sources, when they number in the thousands or tens of thousands, from across the world, and over many years, do cumulatively add up to notability. Grhabyt (talk) 19:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment An organization is made up of members, isn't it? So how does one quantify participation in the group? ▹ (pcatanese (talk) at 17:47 on March 14, 2013) —Preceding undated comment added 17:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sionk - Have you given any thought to the WP link I've provided above which goes into detail about this notion that "Rules cannot cover every possible circumstance and sometimes may impede us from improving the encyclopedia."? I'm just looking for the forward path. ▹ (pcatanese (talk) at 18:11 on March 13, 2013) —Preceding undated comment added 18:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment - in a effort to assist anyone reviewing this, I'd like to point out that several additional sources have been added to the article since the process began including ones to Leonardo, Rhizome, and the official College Art Association blog - and I am actively seeking out additional references. For example, a review of the NMC event held in partnership with the National Academy Museum in NYC is forthcoming - I'm just waiting for it to go live. Finally, while there is no mechanism to recognize that this is a 10year old, 910+ member professional academic society that has been granted affiliate status by CAA - the premier academic org (15000 members, 100 years old) - which constitutes notability -in this field-. I cannot stress enough that notability guidelines need to take into consideration the domain-level standards when possible, since those guidelines have built into them the "common sense" seeking "pillars of wp" , I hope that there could be some weight given in this regard. Anyway, I don't want to repeat all the points made earlier, but suffice to say - two other editors appear to share my views, and one does not. Attempts have been made out to reach out to wp visual arts lists that watch these proceedings via the crosslisting process, but as of yet, the number of voices and respective positions have not appreciably changed. Hoping that a decision can be reached on this soon. ▹ (pcatanese (talk) at 15:34 on March 17, 2013) 15:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FRAME:S[edit]

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

There really aren't sufficient reliable, third-party sources to establish notability or to demonstrate that the subject has received significant third-party coverage. Current sources are not objective, third-party references and rely heavily on writings of Staffan Garpebring, who created the subject of the article. dci | TALK 18:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This psychological concept appears not to have made any impact on the field. It does not appear to have received any notice outside of the writings of its creator, Steffan Garpebring. He himself has minimal citations at Google Scholar, and I could not find any references at all to FRAME:S or FRAMES that were not by Garpebring. --MelanieN (talk) 03:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Phil Vischer. J04n(talk page) 18:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's In The Bible[edit]

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

Notability, declined PROD by author. It's a Fox! (What did I break) 17:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This would be close in the event that substantial third-party coverage existed of the subject, but it doesn't. Although I have to admit I was highly amused by the content. dci | TALK 21:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I did find a couple of RS discussions of this project: Deseret News[19], Christian Post[20]. At minimum, some discussion of the project belongs in the article about Phil Vischer; not sure if there's enough to sustain a separate article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- While the Christian Post article would be a quite informative and objective source, I'm not sure if it can really be construed as giving significant coverage of this subject. I do agree with you that it could supplement the info in the Vischer article. On the other hand, the Deseret News one is a bit sketchy, describing the show in somewhat promotional phrasing. dci | TALK 01:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable Christian drivel. NickCochrane (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect to Phil Vischer. Vischer is notable, but not everything he has created is. This at most merits a mention and redirect, but that's about it. I debated nominating this for a speedy because the earlier version of the article was blatantly promotional, but I decided against it since there might be some random off-Internet sources that would help it pass.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, and do not redirect. As this work is not demonstrably notable, I don't think it would be appropriate for Wikipedia to keep a redirect from this title; otherwise people typing the question into Google would be directed to a writer who is clearly not among the most notable/recognised authors on the subject. – Fayenatic London 12:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable: a mention in something like the Christian Post is nowhere near notability. One would need a whole raft of similar material from independent sources of that type. (N.b. the sources given for the Vischer article don't seem to me to establish notability for him either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpacobb (talk • contribs) 00:00, 12 March 2013‎
Keep sufficient references to establish notability. Some of the objections are clearly not objective but driven by bias such as "Non-notable Christian drivel" (by NickCochrane) – comment added by Edgelore (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2013
- I share your concern about the objectivity of such comments; however, an excellent rationale is given by Tokyogirl and Jpacobb above, as well as by several others. dci | TALK 01:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at the original there was not enough external citations, however the current version establishes notability through substantial third-party coverage, most of whom have an alexa rank of under 100K. In addition taking a quick look at either "find sources" links below you can quickly see hundreds of blogs talking about the subject. djkwk7 (talk) 15:36, March 12 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 19:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Blogs are of dubious reliability; objective information of the subject really ought to be at least substantiated by a more reliable, verifiable source. dci | TALK 01:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that small blogs are not objectively reliable however thousands of blogs verifying the same information would bring credibility to any subject, despite the more important part of my statement which stated that all the sources sited in the article are coming from reliable sources sites that have an Alexa rank less than a 100K, meaning the top .01% of all websites on the planet, most of the sources are under 5K rank and places them more in line of being the top .001% of sites in the world. The references in this article are more credible than the other articles referenced to in wikipedia. The decision to keep this article or not should not rely on peoples nonobjective opinions of whether they have hear of it or not, but rather the validation criteria which wikipedia has set in place, all of which this article falls within. djkwk7 (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - There are a number of reasons blogs are not valid references. Just because something is in print or believed by the masses does not make it true. (i.e., 33% of Americans think the Sun revolves around the earth, 49% of US adults and students think that ordinary tomatoes do not have genes, but genetically altered do.) Alexa ranking does not measure credibility or reliably, only hits. TMZ and Perez Hilton probably have high ranking, but I would question their credibility/reliability. You refer to other articles not having references better than this one, but that has no bearing on this AfD. See WP:OTHERSTUFF.reddogsix (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a current project of someone who has sold more than 50 million VHS/DVDs. This series is should also be considered notable for its pioneering work in puppetry ^[1]. I would also like to dismiss the earlier comments that were far from objective.workworkcf (talk) 15:36, March 12 2013 —Preceding undated comment added 19:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC) — workworkcf (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - Not-notable DVD. reddogsix (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect/merge to Phil Vischer, the creator of the series. I think this is borderline as far as notability goes. There is some third-party coverage [21] - most of what I found is already cited in the article - but the coverage may not amount to significance. A redirect/merge would retain the basic information and the history, and the article could be recreated if notability increases in the future. --MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. J04n(talk page) 18:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty Disturbia[edit]

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

Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- it actually appears to be a brand, not a company. I note that we do not appear to have an article for Etra Design House, its owners. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain - It seems they may have fallen off the news radar in the past few years because searches at BBC News, The Guardian, Manchester Gazette, MULE (though this newspaper seems to be mostly political), Manchester Evening News and The Telegraph provided nothing substantial aside from Manchester Evening News providing four articles (fairly small and talk about the same stuff) and another The Independent article here. Multiple searches at British fashion magazines didn't yield any results and a search to see if either Leesa Betram or Etra Design House may be notable provided nothing substantial, mostly relevant to Pretty Disturbia so this brand may still not have gained that much attention (still indie, in other words). One side of me recognizes the current references but the other makes me question that the article could use more references. SwisterTwister talk 02:37, 8 March 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) 16:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep The current sourcing seems to be just sufficient enough to scrape notability, although I am with SwisterTwister here with questioning whether the subject IS notable. It's a very fine line between technical notability and clear notability, and I'm not really seeing clear notability, BUT I am seeing it as notable on technicalities. Mabalu (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There is some sourcing from independent reliable sources - one item from the Independent, one from the Manchester Evening News, a couple of things in a trade magazine - but it is minimal. I could find nothing to add to the sources already cited in the article. IMO this does not amount to notability. --MelanieN (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Berklin[edit]

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

Despite surviving A7 for assertion of importance, I could not find any reliable, independent secondary sources to verify them - subject does not appear to be notable. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 16:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I haven't found anything via Highbeam or Questia, and nothing on Google other than by the subect, so this lacks sufficient evidence to meet WP:CREATIVE. AllyD (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite claims of "great success" it doesn't seem as though the subject actually possesses notability. Ducknish (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

St mathews c.e primary school[edit]

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

Looks like it was written by a student at this school. Poorly written article with no references. Not notable enough to have an article here. Tentinator (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Usually, per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, these articles are redirected to the school district that operates them. But the article mentions nothing of said district, and I can't find any sources on the web that point to a school district. I'm not even sure where this school is. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It appears that this school is located in Nechells, Birmingham, England, but I can't determine what the appropriate page to redirect to would be given that this is a church-affiliated school. If an appropriate redirect target is located, my second choice would be to redirect to whatever it is. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, primary schools typically do not have articles on Wikipedia. —Gyaro –Maguus— 18:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 18:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ms Mr[edit]

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

Doubtful notability - lots of references, but none seem to be from independent sources. Also promotional. Deb (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep. ~~It is perhaps a little early in their career for an article, given that they haven't yet released an album, but~~ there is some coverage already out there from reliable sources: [22][23][24][25]. I think this just about meets WP:BAND. — sparklism ^hey! 14:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism ^hey! 14:45, 10 March 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 March 10. Snotbot t • c » 14:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! Deb (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the sources listed above, along with others that exist - Pitchfork has more write-ups on this duo [26][27], and here's one from MTV [28] - are enough to meet WP:BAND #1. Gong show 16:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Very likely - I am unfamiliar with Pitchfork. Deb (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's no worse article than other articles about new artists and their are plenty of pages like this currently on Wikipedia with a similar amount of information. It is also hardly promotional as the article just gives information on the single and album releases and reviews like alot of other pages. FireFinder 15:45, 11 March 2013
Comment - Actually, having now read the wikipedia article on Pitchfork Media, I am amused to realise that the OTT style of the article is in perfect keeping with the sources! :-) Deb (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's plenty of information and at this point the band is famous enough and has released enough to warrant an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Knapp (talk • contribs) 20:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus leaning towards deletion. The sources are simply bad, but policy based consensus indicates some sources might be available and a good candidate for a merge and AFD is not cleanup. Secret ^account 03:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trombone suicide[edit]

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

Lacks coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. References provided, a single paragraph in a book on another subject and a web based forum. Notability not established. RadioFan (talk) 14:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources seem quite adequate for the nature of the topic. If further sources peter out then we would merge up into other topics such as trombone or marching band per our editing policy. There is no case for deletion. Warden (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Commet The nature of the topic doesn't determine the adequacy of the sources. Forums aren't reliable sources, ever.--RadioFan (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BUT. Here is the encyclopedic topic, which doesn't exist yet: Marching band choreography. This should be a section of that. For the time being, let it stand. Off to Articles for Creation I go. Carrite (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, Articles for Creation is a bit of a catastrophe, isn't it? I don't have time or the inclination to write this one. Where is Article Rescue Squadron when you need them? Carrite (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Listed at ARS for expansion. Carrite (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, but perhaps if it doesn't improve in the future it may be best to merge it into a more general marching band article. Ducknish (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an article destined to be filled with original research from passing students. If created it will need ongoing oversight from an experienced editor.--RadioFan (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a forum is never a reliable source, and so far there's only one other source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's one source below, perhaps the only one available at this time from Google News and Books searches on the entire internet!

– Moore, J. Steven (2011). Play it from the Heart: What You Learn From Music About Success In Life. R&L Education. pp. 68–69. ISBN 1610483715. Retrieved March 2013. ((cite book)): Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Not notable of other marching band choreography topics p b p 15:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a new one on me, but I see no reason at all why we shouldn't consider this to be an encyclopedic topic. Issues about us not yet having anything broader on marching band choreography are covered under WP:IMPERFECT, as are questions about lack of coverage volume. If we had too little on this manoeuvre and plenty on band choreography, then merging might be appropriate but we're actually in the opposite case here, so let's support what we've already built.

One request though - photos! or even video. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are tons of videos and photos, but I could find none falling within CC-BY-SA 3.0 License or GFDL.ifny (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources. Where are they? I see none. The only hit I get on Google Books is the "Play It from the Heart" book. Literally nothing else says anything about Trombone Suicide. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's something, not nothing. Warden (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For a topic like this, with no 'official' title, I'd expect many sources would be found under one or more synonyms for the term, not necessarily the one form of the article title as given. That's going to need legwork by someone who knows the topic, not just a knee-jerk response from me. Blanking vast swathes of an article that's less than a week old, and is already under discussion at AfD, is not a helpful move. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources should come first. Writing an article based on personal experience followed by a search for sources to support it is not how a good article is created.--RadioFan (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like a pony. However we have to work with what we have, and what we have is an article that's written, albeit largely unsourced. Do we move forwards or backwards? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no sources, then how we do move forwards? Quit dodging the question. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Find some sources. Add them. It's not hard, editors do it all the time. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Give it time folks, this article is barely a month old. If you build it, they will come.ifny (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how wikipedia works. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someone once said "Wikipedia isn't here to promote ideas to the point where they may become notable, that notability must come first."--RadioFan (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I started this article, and was not speaking from "personal experience" -- I'm not even remotely a trombone player :) I came across the phenomenon online, and tried to find out more information on what it actually was, how it started etc. So I started to research it -- as extensively as Google would allow. In the process I realized that it has been around for a while -- supported by first-hand participants mentioning participating in it decades ago (yes I know that's not a reliable source, but that indicates that they may well exist, just a matter of tracking them down). Folk traditions exist but may not be well-documented online -- but that does not mean they do not exist or are not notable; I added the unreliable sources template myself so that others could help rectify the problem. There are 18,700 Google results for "trombone suicide", 929,000 results for trombone suicide and 1,430 results for trombone headchopper. Just because one layperson (aka me) can't find non-self-published sources for something, does not mean that the sources do not exist. There is already one published book reference that has been added; more will follow if given time. And that is also why I have asked for expert attention for this article -- hopefully music teachers, musicians etc. will be able to weigh in. We should not be too quick on the delete trigger -- the article is barely a month old! Let's give the experts/Wikipedians time to find this page and add credible online/offline sources to it. ifny (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get this "give it a chance" methodology. Not once have I seen "just let it sit" be an effective method of source-finding. That's why we still have unsourced articles dating back to 200-freaking-6. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I share 10lbHammer 's concerns here. I've yet to see an article where sources were assumed to exist when none could be found ever see any improvement much less any of the assumed sources materialize. Either sources exist or they dont. A brief mention in a single book isn't enough to build a good article with and it's not enough to demonstrate notability.--RadioFan (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the links that TPH deleted today, and watch the YouTube videos contained therein, you'll see an online discussion between a number of people, all of whom are cheerfully throwing around the term "trombone suicide" as if it's anything but new. Now of course this is primary and less than RS, so it doesn't serve to support an article to our required standard. However it's also a pretty big hint that this technique is known and discussed within its field, and so if that's the case, we would expect that more polished sources do exist and should be findable by those who look for them. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But "we" already did look for them and found jack shit. You can't hang an article on "well, there might be sources". That never works. Either there are sources or there aren't; don't speculate that there might possibly may be sources. There might possibly may be sources saying that I've written twenty #1 country songs this year; does that mean I'm notable and should have an article because it may be the case? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"But "we" already did look for them and found jack shit. "

No, you didn't. Your past record for searching ability is poor (you couldn't even find xargs) and even you have managed to turn up a book reference for this. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A book reference. Not several, a. The other books on Google Books, when searching for the exact term "trombone suicide", don't even contain it. I actually clicked through to each book, and it was patently a false positive. For instance, why would this book turn up if it has nothing on trombone suicide? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly a notable concept; I added a couple of references. The term and the routine are obviously well-established, but not written about a lot - more recorded (Google Search finds mostly YouTube videos). The article should be developed further and more sources found, but the subject is clearly a keeper IMO. --MelanieN (talk) 16:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Secret ^account 03:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coastal Forces of World War II[edit]

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

This article is purely WP:OR, grouping other navies' ship classes by British designations that were never applied to them. This is not, and cannot be, reliably sourced, and cannot become anything more than WP:SYNTH at best. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the subject has received significant coverage from multiple reliable sources including books published by the United States Naval Institute, and others. The article may need work, but AfD is not a substitute for article improvement.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But sometimes blowing it up and starting over is called for, as in the case there the title is a notable subject but the article is utterly unverifiable original research and synthesis, as is the case here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only}
  - I wrote that when I was starting out, as a sort of speculative article to see whether it would fly. It wasn't clear then whether it was a good idea or not, and I remember having doubts. In those days there was little interest in anything to do with naval coastal forces on Wikipedia, and I wrote a number of the articles that did exist in that area. But goodness, what a harsh view you have Bushranger. Many countries operated coastal forces in WWII in a rough parallel to British coastal forces. To call that "utterly unverifiable original research and synthesis" is absurd and over the top. Still, the article has not been developed and has a low view count, and since it attracts such a level of vitriol it should be deleted. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sorry if it comes across as harsh; sometimes at oh-dark-thirty my brain's happy-o-meter starts pointing over to 'old codger'. The problem is that while those are indeed in rough parrarel to the British coastal forces, there aren't any reliable sources that say 'these are directly comparable to these others as a group'. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bushranger. Unjustified WP:Synthesis which cannot be supported by RSs Buckshot06 (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The claim that the topic cannot be reliably sourced is blatantly false. Here's a selection of sources:

These works are specifically about coastal forces and operations. There is also a large number of general works about WWII which will include coverage of coastal forces, e.g. The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II.

Warden (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Please explain how these sources about coastal forces explain how 'coastal force' boat X is the same thing as 'coastal force' boat Y, which is the subject of the article. The subject may be notable. The article, IMHO, needs WP:TNT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't say "the same thing". It says "Other Navies operated equivalent boats, but classified and named them somewhat differently." This seems reasonable per WP:OBVIOUS. If you're having trouble with the general concept, please see Brassey's Coastal Forces. Warden (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment an article on the inshore/small boat operations of the participants of WWII would be a valid one. But it needs attention so that there is no whiff of OR or SYNTH. At the moment the title and section titling is dubious - the former should be generic, the latter specific to the nations' proper titling of those units. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:14, 10 March 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, Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 13:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not sure about other countries, but in the USA the Coast Guard is a separate branch of the military since 1790 and their operations during WWII would be clearly encyclopedic. The poorness of this started article is not a matter for discussion here; clearly encyclopedic topic under GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 13:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vipin Gaur[edit]

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

A biographical article of a non-notable person; fails WP:SCHOLAR and WP:GNG. Unable to find coverage in any reliable sources to sufficiently establish notability. — Bill william compton^Talk 12:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Research scholar. Belle collaboration. Many papers claimed as part of large author list, some cites but difficult to find. Does not stand out from the crowd. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Graduate student without doctorate. Citation levels almost nonexistent, which is unsurprising given how new he is, and I find nothing in the profile to distinguish him from the hundreds of other physicists working at Belle. Clear fail of WP:PROF. Ray^Talk 12:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The usual problem of trying to tell whether an academic this junior is notable is that it's difficult to distinguish his accomplishments from his advisor's. And in this case that's made even more difficult by the huge number of authors on the papers. But even if he were first author (which he isn't), the citations aren't high enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1, and it seems clear he doesn't pass the other criteria either. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This appears to be too soon in his career - with notability not yet established. (Msrasnw (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rkdhaugoda's general theory of vasculitis[edit]

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

Original research Theroadislong (talk) 12:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Appears to be something made up by a single person. Nearly unreadable. Clearly original research, with no sources whatsoever. FurrySings (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy tag was removed by the article's creator so I bought it here instead.Theroadislong (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your not allowed to remove speedy deletion templates from articles that you created. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the improperly-deleted speedy tag. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:MADEUP. Pburka (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'd say it was pure WP:OR, but it's also WP:PROMO, so I guess one can't call it pure. --Nat Gertler (talk)
Delete per all above. If this was a real medical theory, the article wouldn't contain sentences such as "Idealism also creates fear of nuclear war, various regional wars (Israel & Palestine, Lebnon, America, Iraq, and Afganistan),in Nepal, the impending conflicts between janjaties and non janjati ,pahadi and madeshi ,tharu and non tharu madehi due to slogan of unscientific single racial identity of INGOs and Nepali Maoist party( EXTREMIST AND FAKE-COMMUNIST PARTY ). environmental nuclear pollution, poverty, starvation and many human crisis situations." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this really could have been speedy deleted. This seems to be entirely made up. Ducknish (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete for lack of sources and no demonstrated notability. Daniel Case (talk) 02:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P. K. Industries[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP unsourced and I cant find anything on it. - as written it is a clear A7 however as a result of another editor removing unsourced claims that has been contested. LGA _talk^edits 12:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. 19:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Prior versions of the article show that this business was a lead refinery. Google News is unhelpful because of the unoriginality of the name; there are msny "P K Industries" that aren't this. If this is notable, reliable sources for this may not be in English. Still, no prior version of the article establishes that this business had the kind of significant effects on history, technology, or culture of the kind needed to justify a standalone article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Delete. I went online and found a variety of references for 'P. K. Industries.' Many of the locations are related, but none of the references really provide much info. Some of the references may be for businesses totally independent from each other. If this article is to be kept, we need to throroughly examine the references and find information that can link some of these locations together and better explain what this company does. I think the article actually is about a small company in Bangladesh, rather than about the worldwide P. K. network. If so, this small company should not have an article, unless someone comes up with a compelling reason to keep it. Bill Pollard (talk) 14:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment mea culpa - i did not realize that removal of content that would qualify an article for speedy deletion -blatant advertisement would then bar the article from deletion under "speedy deletion - no claim of significance" because it previously did proclaim its importance! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete - the original posting was about some "super" battery maker in Banglash. the only "PK Industry" + "battery" hit was to a company in Orange USA -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Requesting to wait for an explanation from the creator before deleting this article! --Zayeem ^(talk) 18:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. It's impossible even to tell which company this is supposed to be about; Google finds numerous companies named P. K. Industries, even when qualified by "Bangladesh".[29] --MelanieN (talk) 23:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 07:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Masson[edit]

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

1. single source is primary (based on talk page OTRS licence) so fails notability WP:GNG and WP:BIO 2. quick look didn't find single inde source (unrelated to AfD, beware the official website contains malware according to Google, I will remove link now. Also COI / SPA creator User:Truthba7ith ) . Widefox; talk 11:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as completely lacking in depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:01, 10 March 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, Jenks24 (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to International Marxist Tendency. Sandstein 06:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

La Riposte (France)[edit]

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

Non-notable group, no substantial references in independent sources, no reliable sources. Downwoody (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I thought I should get my retaliation in first, before the 'I don't like it' votes pile up ;) As far as I understand, fringe political organisations are given slightly more leeway on Wikipedia. The CPGB Weekly Worker is a somewhat independent source (though I lose track which organisations with the word "Communist" in the title are actually the old Communist Party). The English Wikipedia article is succinct and shows little sign of the self-promotion by similar articles. Sionk (talk) 16:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into International Marxist Tendency - The IMT is certainly notable, but its national chapter in France seems to be rather small. In fact, most of the references to "La Riposte" in connection with the IMT I was able to find were actually in relation to the Quebecois chapter (and its publication of the same name) rather than the French chapter. However, I think that France's La Riposte deserves some mention, but not enough to warrant its own page at this time. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 19:59, 3 March 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, Jenks24 (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into International Marxist Tendency per what Shinmawa said. FurrySings (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Meet Me in St. Louis (band). Jenks24 (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Variations on Swing[edit]

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

Non-notable and unsourced discography of an album of a barely notable band. At best it should be merged to Meet Me in St. Louis. Sionk (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. FurrySings (talk) 12:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Meet Me in St. Louis (band), which already includes some of the information here. --Michig (talk) 14:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the band's page at the least (notable band, plausible search term); at most, the album page might be kept and expanded using the reviews if some of the more reliable sources can be tracked down. Here are the ones at MusicOMH and DrownedInSound, respectively, and this appears to be the issue of Kerrang! in question. Gong show 17:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Papal_election#Post-scrutiny. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fumata nera and fumata bianca[edit]

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

The English Wikipedia is not a dictionary for the Italian words for white and black smoke. What information there is are already within the articles for pope and papal conclave. How useful is a three sentences article that was an orphan for almost 8 and half years? KTC (talk) 10:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, can't put it much better, and it's not even a useful redirect. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Papal_election#Post-scrutiny - they seem to be more than dictionary terms if they are used with a wider meaning. But that sort of thing could be briefly mentioned in the article about the Papal election process. Sionk (talk) 12:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already covered in Papal election, and it's an implausible search term. FurrySings (talk) 12:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it as Sionk said. It's still a useful thing for inclusion, it just probably doesn't need its own article. Ducknish (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as suggested by Sionk. While I see that the Italian Wikipedia has a separate article, I don't think that is necessary since the significant facts can be adequately accommodated in the main article. The title is not the most likely of search terms, but not entirely implausible either. Remember to retarget Fumata nera and Fumata bianca as well if this page is merged and redirected. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Sionk. --Surturz (talk) 02:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Papal_election#Post-scrutiny --Jayarathina (talk) 07:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Sionk, unless someone can demonstrate that the subject has any more depth besides being a signal. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No indication that this WP:DICDEF will ever be developed into an article independent of Papal_election#Post-scrutiny. Zad68 18:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Papal election. No real need for a separate article on this. HangingCurve^{Swing for the fence} 21:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 18:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Law and Social Deviance[edit]

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

Relatively new journal that has not yet had a chance to become notable; article creation premature. Not included in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Randykitty (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the journal is in HeinOnline, then it is part of one of the most selective legal databases and should therefore be considered to meet Criteria 1 of WP:NJournals. HeinOnline Acquisition Editors determine whether journals suit the narrow scope required by law school and law firm subscribers. The Bluebook is easily the most established and relied-on legal citation guide. The Bluebook chose to include the journal under rule 3.1 in its most recent edition, further supporting the requirements of Criteria 1 WP:NJournals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Civilalmas (talk • contribs) 05:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC) — Civilalmas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong Keep Bluebook is an extremely selective, independent source that regulates all citation of law journals and reviews, and HeinOnline is a highly selective database that only stores superior law sources. Both of these include and mention the Journal of Law and Social Deviance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.67.237 (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC) — User:206.174.67.237 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment HeinOnline is a provider of content. They will not include journals like the predatory PA journals springing up all over the place (which this one isn't), but apart from that they are not very selective. Similarly, the Bluebook will include a standard abbreviation for any law journal and is not very selective either. If inclusion in this database and book would meet WP:NJournals, I would not have proposed this for deletion. --Randykitty (talk) 07:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Respectfully, I believe that you are undermining HeinOnline and Bluebook. Everyone involved must have a doctorate degree in the field. Do you have a J.D.? Have you published in law? If you do and have, then you know the rigorously high standard for publication in the legal field and how intensely difficult it is to be published by a law review, and be included in a database upon which other researchers rely.

Have you ever archived anything with HeinOnline? If not, then you should submit something to test whether your theory--that they are not selective--is correct. I encourage you to attempt the same with Bluebook, which only lists about 200 journals (worldwide).

Our journal has received several article submissions that cite our journal. In my work, which has been published by top-tier or second-tier journals, I cite the journal. Thus, the journal has been relied-on and proven to be trustworthy by many authors and editors. You may not have researched your claim that the journal has not been cited, so I provide a few links to examples of the journal's reliability, here:

http://www.rutgerspolicyjournal.org/sites/rutgerspolicyjournal.org/files/issues/10_1/10_1-Cusack.pdf.

http://www.jael-online.org/wp-content/uploads/Death-Revolution.pdf

http://www.nysba.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=142456

http://sites.thomsonreuters.com.au/journals/2012/05/08/australasian-dispute-resolution-journal-update-april-2012/

Many more examples of the journal being cited are available on LexisNexis, HeinOnline, and WestLaw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.67.237 (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of those articles that cite this journal were written by the same person who got a $1000 grant towards the cost of the journal's publication and who wrote this Wikipedia article. Do you have no shame? Why is it that commercial spammers nearly always recognise that their behaviour here is counterproductive once it is challenged but their supposedly more intelligent academic counterparts never seem to do so? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that that same person with a penchant for citing this journal is, as I suspected, its editor. Self-citations are obviously useless as a determinant of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, agree with analyses provided by Civilalmas (talk · contribs) and 206.174.67.237 (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to point out that the above references given by 206.174.67.237 (talk · contribs) are just citations of articles published in this journal, not in-depth discussions of the journal itself. For academics, we generally require hundreds if not thousands of such citations before they are considered notable and it is difficult to see why this should be different for a complete journal... The Bluebook contains instructions on how to cite legal publications (particularly in the United States). Inclusion of a journal abbreviation in it therefore hardly a distinction, nor is it in-depth coverage. I maintain that this journal fails both WP:GNG and WP:NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 12:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The above links are just a few examples of the journal being cited by other journals, some of which are included in Wikipedia. For example, The New York Bar Association and The Rutgers Journal of Law and Public Policy both published articles that cite this journal. To clarify, those are not links to this journal. They are links to other reliable journals that have published citations to this journal. In the J. L. & Soc. Deviance's Wikipedia page, the journal includes a quote published by the Text and Academic Author's Association (TAA). This independent source discusses the journal. There is no definition in WP:GNG and WP:NJournals for "in depth", so this quote satisfies that requirement. You seem to have conceded to the point that HeinOnline is selective. This means that the journal meets the criteria in WP:GNG and WP:NJournals. Your idea that we should conflate academics and WP:GNG and WP:NJournals is inappropriate because the standards are wholly distinguishable and measured separately. Many of the journals with pages on Wikipedia have not been cited hundreds or thousands of times. You offer no evidence to support your insinuation that all other journals on Wikipedia have been cited hundreds or thousands of times. Because this journal is included in a selective database, HeinOnline, and because it has been addressed directly in detail by TAA, a reliable source with editorial integrity, this page meets the standards set forth in WP:GNG and WP:NJournals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.67.237 (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you should stop and think how such inability or unwillingness to understand Wikipedia's policies from someone who many readers will assume to be representing this journal will reflect on the reputation of the journal. If you can't even get to grips with that then how competent do you (and by implication the journal) appear to be at real-life law? The TAA source is just a notification that someone received a grant of $1000, with a statement of what the journal intends to achieve rather than what it has actually achieved. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Phil: First, my analysis of Wikipedia's policies are spot-on. Everything I wrote is true. Please address what I wrote directly and, at least, support your claims. Second, I can assure you that a conversation about Deletion policies is irrelevant to the authors' legal analyses and capabilities, professional reputations, or decision to publish with the journal. Nevertheless, you should pay them more respect. They have all earned it. Third, TAA is an organization established by and for academic authors. The journal has served as a text book in university courses. It is an academic text. TAA is not an arbitrary lending institution posting an informal notice online. TAA is a reliable and selective source that produces monthly content for academic authors. What you see online was a part of a mailed newsletter that contained articles about academic publishing written by experts for experts. The statement describes what the journal has already achieved. The mixed-media format has already served as an academic text at a university. This journal is physically archived in law libraries and university libraries in Canada, U.S., and Puerto Rico. These are highly selective archives. One example maybe viewed here, http://www.ccl.lib.ak.us/uhtbin/cgisirsi.exe/x/0/0/57/5?user_id=PACUAS&password=EGAN&searchdata1=journal+of+law+and+social+deviance&srchfield1=GENERAL%5ESUBJECT%5EGENERAL%5E%5Ewords+or+phrase&submit=Search. I would like to highlight that no one is debating that HeinOnline is selective. Thus, because of the journal's physical inclusion in libraries and its inclusion in HeinOnline, the journal qualifies under criteria 1 of WP:GNG and WP:NJournals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.67.237 (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Phil in all respects. As for HeinOnline, I commented on that above and am not going to repeat myself. As for your interpretations of WP guidelines: we're not in a courtroom here and dumping huge walls of text is a strategy that in WP "jurisprudence" frequently backfires. You don't have to convince a jury here, but an admin who's well-versed in WP procedures and knows what generally is considered, for example, "in-depth coverage". Please familiarize yourself with our procedures and guidelines and come with real arguments establishing notability, instead of all this "wikilawyering". Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- fails WP:GNG and WP:NJournals -- something apparent in the results of the searches given at the top. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply You should visit the following link, which demonstrates that the journal was archived in a selective collection, i.e. a library: http://www.ccl.lib.ak.us/uhtbin/cgisirsi.exe/x/0/0/57/5?user_id=PACUAS&password=EGAN&searchdata1=journal+of+law+and+social+deviance&srchfield1=GENERAL%5ESUBJECT%5EGENERAL%5E%5Ewords+or+phrase&submit=Search

Being held by the library of the university where this journal is published is far from evidence of notability. You really are damaging this journal's reputation by this stubborn refusal to listen. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, your comments amount to bullying. You have not presented evidence as much as attempted to insult me, the journal, and your fellow editors with your conduct. Consistent with Wikipedia:Dispute resolution's suggested response to bullying, I will disengage. You have forfeited the benefit of my discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.67.237 (talk) 11:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that disagreeing with you and giving advice equals "bullying", then it is indeed a wise step to disengage from this discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 11:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have refrained from making a recommendation until now because I was hoping that those calling for keeping this article would come up with some better evidence, but that now seems unlikely as the one editor who might have done so has chosen to interpret questioning and debate as bullying. Worldcat lists 33 libraries carrying this journal, but that is for the online edition that presumably costs less than the $45 a pop that it costs to get it on CD, so it doesn't represent any great commitment from those libraries. Both HeinOnline and the Bluebook aim for comprehensiveness, so those listings are the opposite of the selective listings required by WP:NJOURNALS. No independent sources about the journal have been presented here, and the only citations to it are in articles written by the journal's editor. I'll refrain from giving my opinion about the general acceptance in academia of this type of anti-academic self-promotion in case it's construed as more "bullying". Phil Bridger (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment it is surely worth knowing that the person who created this article also wanted to create one on the editor of the journal (failed AfC); it's also interesting to see the editor's now-blanked user page [30]. I think we've got a big steaming plate of WP:NOT here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not proved and POV editing suspicious. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Overton, Hampshire. J04n(talk page) 18:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Foxdown[edit]

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

No significant claim of notability made. A quick trip around the street on Google StreetView shows no solar panels or cedar cladding. Bazonka (talk) 09:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - looks like the article coords are wrong. I found the cedar panels visible at [31]. It seems moderately notable as sustainable building is big news at the moment, although I agree it needs to be better sourced. Could be merged into Overton, Hampshire.Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 13:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the location. I think I was looking at the older part of the estate. However, whilst the development may be sustainable, it's still not necessarily notable. There are lots of sustainable developments, and I don't see what makes this one special. Bazonka (talk) 13:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True. Also looks like it's technically in Quidhampton, Hampshire rather than Overton so I think a merge with that stub would be helpful, and give that article some useful content, and reflect that it's locally notable rather than globally. Baldy Bill (sharpen the razor|see my reflection) 13:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- It reads like an ADVERT by the developer. A street with 75 houses can hardly be notable, unless they have a very innovative design. I doubt that applies here. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Overton, Hampshire as there aren't sufficient sources to support the notability of the street. Note the 75-house development is named "Greenfields" (source)--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be a plain redirect (if anything), not a merge: a development of 75 houses is too NN even to mention in the village article. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:41, 9 March 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, Sandstein 08:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Overton, Hampshire. Clearly not notable in itself. FurrySings (talk) 12:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable cul-de-sac. Or is the Overton article going to turn into a street directory? Sionk (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like an advert. Simply not notable. A merge may also be sensible. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 19:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. J04n(talk page) 18:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Chilean sentiment[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Removed PROD per WP:PROD (previous AfD exists). Reason given in PROD was the prod process indicated that this article needed improvement and since then no improvements has been made on this article. Furthermore all details in this article falls into "nationalism" and not anti-chilean sentiment. I propose that the prod process starts again as issues have not being addressed. Illia Connell (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article establishes that some people don't like Chileans. That should be enough to have an article on the topic. Obviously we should have articles on anti-Semitism, and anti-Japanese, anti-Russian, anti-American feelings, and so forth. Where do we draw the line that says what is important and what is trivial? BigJim707 (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is legitmate subject for a wikipedia article. Its relevant, non-original and verifiable. Since the article was first AfD nominated there has been considerable improvements. This search shows that Anti-Chilean sentiment exists and is a subject aparently important enough for academics to write about.Dentren | ^Talk 16:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia its a encyclopedia not a wall to increase this kinds of feelings, also only newspaper (cant verified his neutrality)can be used as a reference, and anti-chilean sentiment it feels only by a minory without aproperly culture in foreigns countrys that are 3 of them, even more, 2 of them, considering the partnership and brotherhood feelings with argentina in past 10 years, it cant be comparisson with anti semitism aand its a not important topic to any serious academic only sensationalist newspaper of each country like Elmen, La razon from peru, newpaper consider even for the owns peruvians like trash and not serious sources, it is not relevant to be consider even a serious article cause it is not represent a highly percent of thoughs of people of this 2 countrys, considering that anti-semitism its a worldwide fact and not a 2 countrys minory source of this feeling, if that the fact, we need to make articles about anti-argentinian feelings by uruguay people anti-every country that can have a minory bad feeling about his neigboorgs countrys, even we can include people, articles, about this kind of irrational haate are not irrelevaant at all in any way, we talk about 2 countrys and a minory, thats not a serious fact...for that reason i suggest delet this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.11.95.115 (talk) 19:04, 8 March 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, Sandstein 08:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nothing I see here is a relevant deletion reason. PROD rationale was invalid, AfD is not cleanup, and Anti-Chilean sentiment is just as valid as any other Anti-nation sentiment (it's not comparable to Anti-semitism, as that's a religious thing). Just because you don't like the article, 186.11.95.115, doesn't mean it's not a valid one. Lukeno94 (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - its not about liking the article or questioning the title, this article has had numerous clean up attempts with no action taken. The question should be asked, "is this article serious?". All information in this article can easily be deleted for reasons ranging from "off the topic" to plain right "irrelevance" (nationalism is not resentment). The main sources of this article are from internet blogs(is that even legal in Wikipedia?). Get this article written properly or get it deleted. Sadly no attempt has been made to improve this article so the solution is simple. DELETE Chelios123 (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of repeating myself, AfD is not cleanup, and the problems are WP:SURMOUNTABLE if someone wishes to do so - rather than commenting on the lack of action, why not take it yourself, since you seem to know how to solve it? Lukeno94 (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per speedy keep #3, the nominator was a banned sockpuppet. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lagro High School[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)

This school appears to be non-notable, and because schools are excempt from CSD, I suggest this article be deleted via Afd. Also, it appears to be a recreation of a deleted article [32] Noemi Baladjay 2 (talk) 07:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although it may be non-notable (I believe this school is notable), school articles are exempt from speedy deletion criterion A7. It was not a recreation of the deleted page, since the deleted page is a redirect to a non-existent page, Lagro Subdivision.125.212.123.127 (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A school with 7,000 population is notable. And this is school is one of the only 2 schools in the Philippines that have been supported by DEPED for the SPA project. 125.212.123.127 (talk) 07:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm tagging this with the "not a vote" tag, but the important thing about showing notability for schools isn't the size of the population or how many schools are in the area, but coverage in reliable sources that can establish that the school is notable. I also struck the second vote since they both came from the same IP address. I think that they might be students from the school in question and as such are different people. So if I'm right guys, then I recommend signing up for accounts so your comments don't get mixed up with one another. Adding a ton of keep comments won't keep the article, though.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a suggestion, though- do districts count as far as the geology notability guidelines go? If so, then it might be better to create an article for the district as a whole, include information about the schools in the district (among other things notable about the district, of course), and redirect there.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Clarence baladjay. This is a frivolous AfD created by an obvious sock of a blocked editor whose many socks have targettes the article in question with vandalism. This is a speedy keep as far as I can judge. --bonadea contributions talk 08:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was under the impression that high schools were automatically notable anyway? Lukeno94 (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per longstanding consensus that high schools of verified existence are presumed notable; a quick check of Google indicates that Lagro High School has existed since 1974, the 404-ed page of the official web site notwithstanding. One main reason the working consensus on schools has emerged over the years — that high schools are to be treated like villages, rivers, highways, and professional athletes are presumed notable, while elementary schools are presumed non-notable unless extraordinarily noteworthy — is to prevent AfD from being bogged down by dozens and hundreds of challenges of the notability of this school or that. It's a very simple working rule of thumb that is an excellent compromise between those favoring a vast and all-inclusive encyclopedia and those favoring a tightly-focused encyclopedia. The underlying rationale is that proper biographies often mention high schools by name and these links should be blue, not red. Moreover, high schools are community landmarks and generally have theater groups, musical ensembles, sports teams, etc. which generate published coverage in independent sources. We all have better things to do than spend time arguing over this school or that. Keep per consensus. Carrite (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - nominator now blocked as a sock, I'd close it myself if I knew how to *headdesk* Lukeno94 (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jenks24 (talk) 12:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Sharma[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

the same article was deleted earlier after discussion. Notability not observed. He is just a Owner of a Private University. References not included, who show the notability. Only personal weblink of private university is provided. the page should be deleted immediately Jussychoulex (talk) 05:26, 10 March 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 March 10. Snotbot t • c » 06:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, arguably A7, since Chancellor is a purely ceremonial position per Chancellor (education), not qualifying for WP:PROF C6 - and there is some question about whether such a recently founded school, with a small student body, qualifies as a major academic institution in any sense. Searching for secondary sources via Gnews proved rather fruitless, but turned up lots of people with the same name, including a scholar at BU who may actually be notable, so fails WP:BIO anyhow. Ray^Talk 12:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- agree with nom and Ray, except for the A7 indication -- chancellor and founder of a university is sufficient to block a speedy deletion, but RS and indication of notability of the school needs to be established to be kept at AfD and there is not sufficient notability I could find to merit a keep. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ignoring all these non-policy based WP:SPA accounts which never gave the proper sourcing to rescue this article. Secret ^account 03:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arin Hanson[edit]

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

Not quite a candidate for speedy deletion, but is non-notable and a BLP with unreliable sources. I originally proded it, but the author contested it after sourcing some of it.

Could potentially slither into WP:NOTABILITY eventually, but "internet fame" isn't supported by 75k twitter followers. Alan^(E) 02:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about nearly 900,000 subscribers on YouTube? https://www.youtube.com/user/egoraptor. Also Wikipedia has a page for Charlie the Unicorn, Danielle Mackey, and Star Wars Kid have pages: it seems like either we should have a 'Metal Gear Awesome' page, improve the Hanson page to Wikipedia standards, or at the very least review what is constituting as 'internet famous'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LinesToThePaper (talk • contribs) 02:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the legitimacy of "Internet Famous" people on wikipedia should be reviewed. At the moment there are a number of pages that both continue to exist and are being deleted that fit under this category with the only difference between the safe and threatened ones being the preference and attentiveness of editors. There needs to be a ruling so they can be universally deleted or maintained, with some criteria to decide what stays and goes. In the meantime either delete this and the pages mentioned in the previous comment (at the very least the Danielle Mackey one) or let them all stay until we know what we're doing. 24.114.252.242 (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be my position as well. My argument for Arin Hanson's legitimate position as a person of note is partially due to the impact he's had on Flash animation culture (practically inventing a genre of inspired duplicates), his widespread image amongst video game fans, and his prolific contributions to projects featured here on Wikipedia (search Egoraptor). The 'finger moustache' tattoo has a page so I think it's not entirely unacceptable to have a page for someone who has contributed significantly to the 4-Chan era of the Internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LinesToThePaper (talk • contribs) 21:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 3 March 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) 04:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't need any sort of ruling on "Internet Famous" people. We already have WP:ANYBIO, WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Hanson fails all of these criteria. Pburka (talk) 04:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed, our existing criteria covers this well enough already. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we have notability guidelines and they are pretty clear, in my opinion. We don't need to "review" our guidelines for "internet celebrities" just because a particular internet celebrity doesn't currently meet our guidelines. This is an encyclopedia - it covers things that have been covered by (mostly mainstream) media and sources. That means, sometimes, the less mainstream things don't get covered. But that's no different to ye olde paper encyclopedias that didn't cover every travelling snake-oil salesman or puppet-show practitioner (trying to think of historical equivalents to internet celebrities). Find me a couple of reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject and it'll be a different story. Stalwart111 06:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now, but leaning towards delete. I was originally thinking that this would be a clear case of delete on my end, but after cleaning out all of the fancruft from the article and essentially turnign it into little more than a stub and a filmography, I did manage to find some sources that back up some notability for him. I want to note straight away for some of the previous keep rationales that popularity does not equal notability here on Wikipedia. You can be popular but still not receive coverage in reliable sources. It just makes it more likely that he'd have received coverage. The biggest problem here is that what I have found is rather light. Much of his notability stems from two things: his Metal Gear Awesome series and his time on The Tester. Everything else he's done has essentially gone unnoticed by reliable sources. I managed to find two relatively decent-ish yet brief articles on the MGA series, but they focus on the show rather than Hanson. There are two articles that comment on individual Tester episodes, but that's not entirely a depth of coverage. That's essentially what's bugging me right now- there isn't a depth of coverage. There's enough that I'm mulling this over and really trying to dig for sources, but there isn't a lot out there. As far as claims of him being a trendsetter, you'd have to prove that with RS and since those are lacking in general... Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't WP:ENT relevant for this article? It is for other ones about internet celebrities (see Danielle Mackey), so why wouldn't this apply here? 77.117.246.211 (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep temporarily, but improve* - There are thousands of people on wikipedia that are in show business that have less on thier pages. I'm not saying that those pages should not be up for consideration, but considering the exansive career Arin has, it is worth of being at least considered. Arin's page is sorely lacking, and if stays this way, I would say delete (there are other, more through places to find information on him) However, to really bring him to notable levels, more of his work that has gone outside of the internet should be considered, and added. I dont know how much there is, and if not enough can be found, then i would push for deletion rawr >:3 (talk) 16:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but improve - As a contestant of Season 3 of The Tester (whose elimination from the show was the subject of quite a bit of coverage, as I recall), as the voice of Bruce Banner on the PlayStation 3 and Wii versions of Marvel: Ultimate Alliance, as the voice of the Forest Guardian in the independent comedy film Press Start, and as the voice of everything in the iOS game Minigore as well as the voice of its main character in other media, Arin should meet the basic criteria as a notable person without even going into his animation work, his YouTube or Newgrounds fame, or even the coverage on his views of various games on websites such as Destructoid and Joystiq. Considering the rest of that, he may just meet the WP:ENT standard, as well, for having such a large fan base (one large enough to get him voted onto The Tester, no less). I do not consider myself a writer, but I will try to rewrite the article to focus on how Arin gained the fans he needed to get on The Tester and the controversy surrounding his elimination from the show as that, in my mind, encapsulates everything that makes him notable. I am putting my thoughts here so that others who can write better and faster than me can see them and come up with their own ideas. User:CardsOfTheHeart (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is the user's only non-userspace edit. Alan^(E) 04:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but improve He's done the voices of many characters from many games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.185.4 (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the IP's only edit in 7 years. Alan^(E) 04:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but improve - He's done voice work on video games, appeared on TV shows and has a big internet following. Sources of his notability exist but haven't been put up yet due to how recently made the article is. - SuperTiencha (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but improve - I think he can be seen as WP:ENT, as Hanson has more YouTube subscribers than internet series and persons like Charlie the Unicorn and thus a larger fan-base. Also, (following a better Wikipedia entry and similar topic/person such as Danielle Mackey) I'd like to see a bit about Arin's personal life here, some more external links to social networks (I'm about to do this now) and maybe the bit about his appearance in the Tester written in full sentences. - Danadewaal (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment (Nominator): What's with every argument for keeping the article having a "but improve" appended to it? (And interestingly, 3 of them are from users with no visible editing experience.) Do you expect the closing admin to close this with "Result: It fails the standards but maybe somebody will improve it eventually?" It's up for AFD because it currently fails the standards, which User:Tokyogirl79 explained quite well in her argument. Alan^(E) 04:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think what Alan is trying to say is that it's nice to meat you all! Ha ha. Don't worry, I can't see an experienced admin giving those not-a-votes any credibility. Transparent as glass. Stalwart111 04:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No offense (and maybe my ignorance is showing here), but it seems silly to me to delete an article on a notable person just because it currently fails to meet the standards. (With that logic, there are probably THOUSANDS of other current articles that need to go up for deletion before this one--but this is not the place for that debate SO DO NOT DEBATE THAT HERE.) On those grounds, though, the article as it stands as of this comment should most definitely be deleted. I am working on it, though. -CardsOfTheHeart (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think it's silly to delete an article because the subject doesn't currently meet notability standards - that's exactly what AFD is for. But it would be silly to delete such an article and decree that it should never be created again (WP:SALT). That's exactly why we have things like WP:TOOSOON and WP:UFY. I don't think anyone would object if you wanted this transferred to your own userspace if you accept the subject is not yet notable but you contend he might be one day soon - at User:CardsOfTheHeart/Arin Hanson draft for example. That way you can continue to work on it (and you won't lose previous work) and you can ask to have it moved back to article space if/when he does become notable. Stalwart111 08:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm contending is that while the subject does meet the basic notable person standards, the article, as it is currently written, is not up to those standards. I'll just leave it at that and continue tinkering with it in my userspace. -CardsOfTheHeart (talk) 20:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand, but that's not really what AFD is about. Articles generally shouldn't be sent here because they need cleaning up. If the subject passes WP:GNG but the article is a mess, then the article should be kept and cleaned up. But if the article is clean and well written, but the subject fails notability guidelines, no amount of extra article clean-up will save it. Whether or not the article itself meets things like WP:MOS is irrelevant here. This is about whether the subject should be included at all. I don't think anyone suggested this should be deleted because the article was in need of clean-up - they suggested as much because, in their view, the subject doesn't meet inclusion criteria. "Adding sections" to the article won't help the subject meet WP:GNG - that can only be done by adding references that verify significant coverage in reliable sources. Stalwart111 22:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no wonder we have a disagreement. You're talking strictly WP:GNG, whereas I've been claiming WP:ENT and, by extension, WP:BASIC.

WP:ENT criteria:

Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities:

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

He's the voice of Bruce Banner in a Marvel game published by Activision for multiple platforms. His voice was used for the entirety of a game made for the iOS (Minigore) whose main character has showed up in other published media. He was a subject of controversy on a reality show produced by Sony. In my mind, those are significant roles in multiple productions.

Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

Winning an online popularity contest to appear on a reality show should tell you all you need to know.

Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

He is prolific on Newgrounds, one of the leading sources of Flash animation. He regularly posts animated movies that become Daily Features and Weekly Users' Picks. Three of his animations (Metal Gear Awesome, Metal Gear Awesome 2, and PokeAwesome) have been selected as Review Crew Picks for 2006, 2008, and 2011 Movies of the Year, respectively. And surely having the founder of Newgrounds call one of your movies one of the best cartoons "in the Universe" must count for something? You just can't have a proper conversation about Flash animation on Newgrounds without mentioning Hanson's accomplishments.

For those reasons, I truly believe Hanson is notable. And if those reasons aren't good enough, then we just agree to disagree and I say nothing further on the matter. CardsOfTheHeart (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Always happy to agree to disagree. My reading of the consensus on such things is that a lot of the things you point to aren't generally accepted as conferring notability in the contexts in which you raise them. But you're certainly welcome to make a case - I'll not stand in the way of that. Stalwart111 02:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE - I have added sections to this page in order to get the page towards WP:ENT standards. If, after this, the page does not meet notability standards in enough people's eyes, then so be it. There is nothing more I can think of to do to this article. CardsOfTheHeart (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IPNav[edit]

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

This company appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH, and doesn't appear to qualify at this time for a Wikipedia article. Source searches are not yielding significant coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IPNav is a relatively new name for the company. Search under "IP Navigation Group" and "Erich Spangenberg" for further sources, such as this article in Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/11/09/meet-the-texas-lawyer-suing-hundreds-of-companies-for-using-basic-web-encryption/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabcfi (talk • contribs) 10:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 4 March 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) 04:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as completely lacking in depth coverage in reliable independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ApothéCure Inc.[edit]

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

There are no reliable sources for what this company does, just the legal trouble they've been in. I would argue that the company is not notable simply because of its legal troubles, and, in lacking that notability, it fails WP:CORP. If its legal issues are notable enough, I suggest a merge into an article discussing malpractice lawsuits or the like. Fbifriday (talk) 11:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 4 March 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) 04:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep they've had at least two major contamination scares, which have been covered in national media over a period of years. Needs better coverage of what they actually do, what can go wrong and more context. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd say the coverage of their incidents manages to justify the existence of the company's article. Ducknish (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Kurtagić[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not appearing to be notable, few (if any) good sources to work off of (especially for a BLP involved with controversial topics), last two debates went no consensus although they were very underrepresented. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:03, 3 March 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) 03:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect to one of the books mentioned. Jenks24 (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maximo, the Amazing Superman[edit]

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

I searched for a long time but couldn't find any evidence that this is notable. samrolken (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the subject is a fictional character, not a book, and is the protagonist of three novels, Maximo, the Amazing Superman, Maximo the Amazing Superman and the Crystals Of Doom, and Maximo the Amazing Superman and the Supermachine. - Dravecky (talk) 03:37, 3 March 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) 03:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being the hero of three childrens' books does not confer inherent notability. No evidence has been provided he satisfies WP:N. Edison (talk) 03:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only the character of a book series that doesn't seem notable itself. Perhaps merge to Big Little Book if we don't want to go for a full delete here. Ducknish (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. While numerically this would appear to be a keep close, there is disagreement on whether or not the sources presented in this discussion satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smoky Joe's[edit]

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

A Google search didn't turn up evidence of notability WP:COMPANY. Their website wasn't working as of the time of this nomination. I am One of Many (talk) 06:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've tagged it for a speedy as blatant promotion, but there are multiple issues with the page aside from that fact. For a store that's supposed to have been very popular and trendsetting, I was unable to find anything in-depth that talks about the store or anything that backs up the various claims to notability. I see brief mentions, but not really anything to show that it's notable enough to merit its own article. At most this could be mentioned in the article for Maxwell Street and have a redirect entitled "Smoky Joe's (clothing store)" redirect there. But an individual article? No. The most I found are brief, trivial mentions in relation to other things (predominantly Maxwell Street itself) and multiple false positives for the other things called Smoky Joe's. It doesn't help that this seems to have been an overly blatant attempt by the store owners to promote their website via Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have declined the speedy deletion, as there are non-promotional versions in the article's history. Speedy deletion is normally not appropriate if the problem can be solved by reverting to an earlier version. I have no opinion, however, as to whether the subject is notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When I add Chicago to the google books search term it seems clear.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep per sources available on the internet, the topic appears to just meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include: [33], [34]. Those with mentions include [35], [36], [37] (others with mentions are available). Afterward, perhaps a merge to Maxwell Street may be in order. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 02:01, 3 March 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) 03:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources provided here show the notability of this store, plus its importance in cultural history. BigJim707 (talk) 05:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A google search brings up various mentions in books, news paper articles and magazines of that era. FurrySings (talk) 13:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So far, I'm not seeing WP:CORPDEPTH. There are several references to Smokey Joe's, but none that I have seen appear to rise above incidental. This [38] as referenced above, mentions Smokey Joe's in a paragraph, but it seems little more than incidental. Are there any that go into even a little depth?--I am One of Many (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Towler[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMMA. IronKnuckle (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He fails WP:NMMA with no fights for a top tier organization.Mdtemp (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has no top tier fights so he doesn't meet WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator.TMCk (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Puddle Duck Racer[edit]

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

Unreferenced by any independent sources (one claimed, but it's dead). No significant indication that this simple dinghy design has achieved any notability.

Bit of an ongoing POV spam issue across other articles too. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Thanks for Bilby's work in sourcing this one. I'm happy to accept that this design is being built by a significant number of builders, and that attention has been paid to it by sailing groups other than the designer. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Hi Andy. Are you suggesting that in addition to its apparent lack of independent RSs currently reflected within the article, you did a wp:before search and could not find any? Or a sufficient number? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN, the fact that it's not an area I'm familiar with (I can work Google, but I'm not going to judge advertorial vs. serious comment), but mostly the egregious spamming of this boat and this article that has gone on across other articles. AGF is not a suicide pact with self-promoting spammers. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a big fan of wp:burden, so no argument there. But that goes to the issue of whether to delete material from an article, as unverified. There is a different burden at AfD, which is set forth in wp:before. That's what I was thinking of.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As above. It's a boat: it does at least exist and they have been built to this design. However it has the hydrodynamics of a housebrick. Is this a useful boat? Is it easy access to sailing for weekend constructors, or is it a waste of good plywood that sails like a wardrobe with a mast on it? That needs significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, which I would also contend requires significant coverage claiming that it's a credible boat, not merely that it's a box-shaped thing that it's possible to construct. The nearest comparison I can think of would be the Mirror dinghy, which has been around rather longer, yet is a product of the tiny UK rather than US, and still it has something like a hundred times as many constructed boats. Have enough Puddle Ducks been built to make it notable? Clearly this is not a design that changes the history of navigation such to require a puffery addition "PDRacer The Easiest Boat To Build Yourself" to Boat (as has been repeatedly removed of late). Is it though a workable boat? – I'm leaving that one up to the dinghy sailors to judge.

Also, as endless dragging of TenPoundHammer to ANI has demonstrated, WP:BEFORE is optional and can be ignored with impunity. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was curious about this one, because when nominated it really was in a bad state, yet I'd encountered this boat at a couple of wooden boat festivals so I was curious. In digging, there seems to be enough about to get past the GNG - it certainly isn't as notable as the Mirror (nice to see Andy mentioning it - it is one of my favorite dinghy designs), but it seems that the low cost and rapid construction using the box design has picked up some converts, and has led to some coverage here and there. Mostly as a result of group builds, but so be it. I suspect that there might be more in the wooden boat magazines, but the main one I'm thinking of doesn't have online archives. - Bilby (talk) 07:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is ample evidence that the PDRacer does exist, many of them have been built world wide, see the member list at the pdracer website. For that reason alone, the wikipedia page for the PDRacer should not be removed.

Reading User:Andy Dingley comments above, it is evident that his reasons for requesting the pdracer wikipedia page be removed, is because Andy has a personal bias objecting to the unconventional shape of the pdracer, also objects that it was created in the US instead of the UK where Andy lives. Andy also indicates he did no research before requesting the removal of the PDRacer wiki page, which supports his motive of personal bias. Further looking at Andy's contribution and edit history, it appears Andy is not a sailor, has little or no knowledge of anything to do with boats, so I question why is he trying to slash and burn in subjects he has no command of.

Just a quick note: throwing around accusations of bias should be avoided. He is just bringing up points which have to be looked into, and having a bias works both ways. Being a sailor probably would make you biased "pro"-sailing, e.g. Just assume good faith here, ok? Lectonar (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank Bilby for his extensive work he has done to clean up the PDRacer wiki page. Reading other comments from Bilby, it appears he doesn't have a puddle duck, but he went ahead and spent extensive amounts of his personal time collecting references from across the web to include with the pdracer wiki page and used his extensive wikipedia editing skills to clean up the text of the pdracer wiki page to make it sound professional, informative, concise and accurate. Due to the positive effort of people like Bilby to help others, Wikipedia is the greatest information source in the world. In addition to that, the world wide puddle duck community shall benefit from Bilby's work. Many people talk of making the world a better place, this effort of Bilby is an example of a person actually doing that. Buthsop —Preceding undated comment added 15:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since this AFD was (reasonable) proposed, the concerns were addressed and the article improved enough to be kept.TMCk (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I would be happy to userfy this to anyone who wants to transwiki it. J04n(talk page) 18:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ainu terms[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary Jac16888 ^Talk 01:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel this request is biased to English language because there exist List of English irregular verbs.アイーダ (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. NOTDICT is about as clear as you can get, this is blatantly just an English to Ainu dictionary--Jac16888 ^Talk 02:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know I have never seem WP:OTHERSTUFF cited in a case that didn't me think, well yes, good point. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Pburka (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a dictionary. English language dictionary lists should be deleted too. BigJim707 (talk) 05:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm very impressed that editors took some 8 years to write all of this. But unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. But Wiktionary is. It looks like this was transwikied before, but the entry got deleted because of this article here. See wiktionary:Transwiki:List of Ainu terms. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary per WP:NOTDICT. Hopefully they will keep it this time. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary per NOTDICT. The older transwiki has been userfied to wikt:User:Cnilep/Ainu, but the current Wikipedia list is more comprehensive. I'm planning to turn the list items into individual Wiktionary entries, but I'm getting busy now, so this will take some time. By the way, help is welcome from anyone active on Wiktionary; see wikt:User:Cnilep/アチャ for a draft entry. Cnilep (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on - isn't this a list of ainu terms, including place names, used in Japan? Don't sources like Richard M. M. Siddle Race, Resistance and the Ainu of Japan 2012 "As for Ainu words, the phonological structure of Japanese has tended to distort them to fit the syllabic constraints of katakana. But where Ainu terms occur within everyday discourse, their standard Japanese transcriptions are given since these.. " etc. apply to the lead paragraph. What other articles do we have about Ainu terms in Japan? However no objection to transwiki-ing In ictu oculi (talk) 07:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Bypass[edit]

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

article appears to be based on misunderstanding of first reference (http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/116/11/e340.full), a patient education page. This is not a medical term. [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 01:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not appear notable and appears to be a misunderstanding. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with both rationales listed above. DVMt (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The term does not seem to be in general use, and the article is based on a few non-Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 03:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The term is indeed used in a few sources, but it is a very informal term, which doesn't even seem to have a uniform meaning. Since this is a medicine-related article, sourcing and accuracy are paramount, and this article isn't up to that MEDRS level. --Noleander (talk) 05:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

T-Dog (The Walking Dead)[edit]

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

An entire article/page dedicated to a minor TV-only character within the show is unnecessary. Character pages should only be created for Walking Dead characters who are featured extensively in both mediums (comic and tv) or are integral to one or the other medium (such as Daryl Dixon) Molcoo (talk) 00:30, 10 March 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 March 10. Snotbot t • c » 00:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters. BOZ (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters per nom. As for content merging, if other editors feel there is a need to expand on the entry at the list, I'll go along with it. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters. No real sources to indicate any sort of notability for the character. While there are some hits using various searches, these pretty much fall entirely into plot summary only. Merging is unnecesarry at this point, as the important information is already included in the target list. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. also the title of the page is an unlikely redirect target. If you can find a proper title for this, then redirect is acceptable, but that is a content decision. Secret ^account 02:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Sharp (heavy metal music singer)[edit]

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

Pointless sub-stub article. Unreferenced apart from a link to a video of an interview, and consists solely of the statement that he plays in two bands. So it doesn't come anywhere near WP:GNG ... and it serves no other purpose. He is already linked in Kevin Sharp (disambiguation) and in both band articles (Venomous Concept & Brutal Truth) his other involvements are listed. So this page adds no content, and has no navigational purpose. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obvious perma-stub. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:NBAND, Kevin is a member of at least 2 notable bands, Venomous Concept and Brutal Truth. How do we choose to which article to redirect Sharp?

IMHO, the following steps need to be taken in order:

Determine whether Kevin Sharp and Danny Herrera are notable
Determine whether or not Venomous Concept is notable
Determine whether or not Retroactive Abortion and Poisoned Apple are notable
Determine whether or not Template:Venomous Concept is notable

--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply A template is a navigational device; it cannot be notable. The fact that you don't understand taht suggests that yor general, grasp of the concept of notability is poor. Please read WP:N
As to the others, WP:NOTINHERITED, so we consider their notability independendently.
As to the redirect, Kevin Sharp (heavy metal music singer) is not a plausible search term; he should continue to be listed in Kevin Sharp (disambiguation), which can link to whichever band he is most closely associated with. If for someone reason you want to create the implausible redirect, follow the same logic: redirect to whichever band he is most closely associated with.
The navigational solutions are simple, are your "keep" c!vote is invalid because you offer no evidence of Sharp's notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: He isn't notable enough to have his own article. At most it will contain info already contained at his bands' articles. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 21:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Sorry, I meant whether or not Template:Venomous Concept SHOULD BE KEPT!!!

Again MrMoustacheMM, how do we choose to which article to redirect Sharp? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Simple: redirect to which ever band he is most closely associated with, because that will be most helpful to the reader.
In this case, I find 17,800 ghits for "Danny Herrera" "Venomous Concept" and 16,500 ghits for "Danny Herrera" "brutal truth" ... so unless somebody has some contrary data, we should redirect to In Legend. There are no Gnews hits for either combnation ([39], [40]), so on that basis, we'd be as well off tossing a coin.
However, as I noted above, in this case he is already listed at the disambiguation page, and Kevin Sharp (heavy metal music singer) is not a plausible search term ... so we don't need a redirect. Just list him at the dab page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Sharp should continue to go to the DAB page. Not sure why we're discussing Danny Herrera here (can we please keep discussions on any one AfD confined to those particular AfDs, please?), but he should redirect to Napalm Death, his major band. (Who the hell are In Legend, and why would he redirect there?) MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At the moment this is redundant, given the entry at Kevin Sharp and the unlikeliness of anyone searching on this title. --Michig (talk) 07:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Redirects are WP:CHEAP. Additionally, as Michig said before, "But if he was only a member of one notable band we would at least leave a redirect to the band. Leaving nothing at all because he's a member of two notable bands doesn't seem to make much sense." So long as the articles for "Venemous Concept" and "Brutal Truth" exist , this makes Kevin a member of two notable bands. Disambiguation pages should only have one link per line, which begs the question to which band should Kevin link?--Jax 0677 (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To Brutal Truth, his main band. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 01:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP per WP:BAND#6 argument which went unchallenged in this debate. Spinning Spark 12:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Venomous Concept[edit]

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

Non-notable band; I can't see any evidence that it meets any of the criteria in WP:BAND, even tho those criteria are astonishingly wide. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Venomous Concept has at least two notable members per WP:BAND:

Shane Embury is a member of Napalm Death and Brujeria
Dan Lilker is a member of Nuclear Assault, Stormtroopers of Death and Anthrax
Buzz Osborne is/was a member of Melvins and Fantômas
Danny Herrera is/was a member of Napalm Death and Anaal Nathrakh

--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. However, this particular collaboration appears to have has received almost no coverage in independent reliable sources, apart from a brief mention of one of their albums. If the article is kept, most of its content should be removed as unsourced.
It's a pity that some editors seem to view notability as some sort of rule-based game. It isn't; it's reflection of the basic principle that an encyclopedia's content is derived from third-party coverage in reliable sources. If those sources don't exist, then the basis for an article doesn't exist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"However, this particular collaboration appears to have has received almost no coverage in independent reliable sources, apart from a brief mention of one of their albums." I know Venomous Concept have had articles in assorted metal magazines like Decibel and Terrorizer (both of which are reliable sources), so the coverage is out there. Someone just has to take the time to find those issues of those magazines. Whether that means this article is worth keeping in the hopes that someone adds that info, or delete for now and remake when those sources are found, is up to you, but I just wanted to mention that the info establishing their notability does exist. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply - Again, how do we choose to which article to redirect? --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply. We don't have to redirect anywhere. In this case I don't see that any of the musician pages is a plausible redirect target, but if you think that the band is more closely associated with one of its members, we can redirect there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It should be obvious, I think, that a band containing multiple notable musicians is inherently worth covering in an encyclopedia and is almost certain to have received coverage in other sources. As MrMoustacheMM has indicated, coverage in metal-specific print sources is very likely to exist, and there is also online coverage which wasn't hard to find, e.g. [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]. The record label bio ([47]) should also be acceptable for confirming basic facts. --Michig (talk) 07:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Thank you Michig! --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:BAND criteria #6. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme (talk) 02:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

D.P. Singh (naturalist)[edit]

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

Notability not observed. Article written without references except some official pages of university. Vice-chancellorship does not make a person notable Jussychoulex (talk) 04:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Vice-chancellorship does make a person notable per WP:PROF criterion 6. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are about 600 universities in India. it means 600 pages should be booked in wikipedia for the pages about their VCs. remember, appointment of VC in Indian universities is purely 100% political, not by the biodata/resume of the person.Jussychoulex (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have plenty of room for 600 articles about vice-chancellors of Indian universities, and it's not our job to speculate about the reasons for anyone's appointment to a job that confirms notabilty. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF C6. But I'm going to stub the article, since it is currently a stylistic, mostly unsourced mess. Ray^Talk 12:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF C6 -- many people are notable for dumb reasons (terrible songs, horrendous acts, nepotism) so even if Jussychoulex's assertion were to be proven correct, it is not enough to overrule that those people are notable. There are definitely more than 600 notable Indian academics and academic administrators lacking articles; that we delete those that are not notable does not mean we should not encourage the creation of articles for those that are. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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