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. While the individual may or may not be notable, the consensus is that this article would require a complete rewrite even if he were. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Malcolm[edit]

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

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

Wikipedia is WP:NOT advertising. Blatant promotion sourced primarily to press releases. CorporateM (Talk) 22:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep seems to have had a successful career as an entrepreneur, but it may be in USA, rather than UK. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Malcolm is an important figure in the computing industry, not only as an entrepreneur in both the US and Europe, but as a prolific inventor. The entry contains direct references to many of his patents, several of which will be found in both Windows and Linux, and thus very widely deployed. His address on the patents is always in the UK which suggests this remains appropriate.RogerDavis21 (talk) 19:04, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Article look well written enough to be kept. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 19:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

wp:pretty. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Overly promotional piece lacking independent coverage about Malcolm. This advert is more about the companies he is involved in and notability is not inherited from them. The sources are mostly promotional pieces and none are independent reliable sources that provide any depth of coverage about him. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep (repeat): I created this page four plus years ago to recognize someone I met briefly who impressed me greatly. After researching his background, I concluded he was someone important in the industry who had not been widely recognized, which is why I created the page. At that time there was not much independent coverage of him, but a quick Google search reveals there is now a substantial amount more, including many third party interviews. I will update the page accordingly over the next few days. Meanwhile, I would contend that the fact that the entry gives more than 30 direct links to published patents invented by Malcolm over a 20+ year period is ample independent evidence to justify a WP entry. Respectfully, I don't understand the "inherited" comment. What is it you believe is missing here? RogerDavis21 (talk) 06:33, 11 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (repeat): Extensively re-written to take account of previous comments. Changed main focus to Inventions, and added references to Articles, Presentations and Interviews.RogerDavis21 (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Pete Malcolm is significant figure in the tech industry as a whole and a significant inventor as evidenced by the patents listed by the US Patent Office and highlighted in this article. One other item of note is that Pete was the first person listed as an Entrepreneur_in_residence in Europe by the Venture Capital firm Benchmark Capital. JohnNewton (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The question here is whether this article is so over-expansive and promotional that it should be kept and edited, or whether it is best removed and restarted by a NPOV editor. He may be notable : the most likely well-sourced notability is as founder of Orchestria,I am not willing to infer his creating these various computer techniques from having been given patents for them, or even their being cited in other patents--it can merely mean that being there and making these claims, it was though safe to cite it. Considering the generally disputed origin of much computer technology, I'd look for a very reliable outside source that actually discussed the claims and attributed the invention to him. If the article is kept, this section will need to be much reduced. The various positions are none of them notable, either individually or collectively, except possibly for Orchestria. . The awards are trivial As for the sources, the interviews seem either to quote him among other people, or to be the direct product of PR, and I am certainly willing to accept Corporate M's view for what is PR. A year ago I would have said, keep and rewrite; with the deluge of promotional articles we're now seeing, I say delete and start over. DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (repeat): Wow, DGG that's quite an attack! Applying those "standards" would result in the deletion of vast numbers of biographies of very well-known people. Notability should be about what a person has actually done and achieved as much as what he or she is "famous" for. Malcolm's patents certainly exist, he more than meets the criteria for prolific inventor, I can find find no evidence to suggest any of his patents have been challenged, and there is no dispute that they have been very widely cited. The inclusion of his business career is to provide a complete biographical picture, it is does not imply that any of those positions was in itself notable, though some of the companies he worked for were clearly very successful in exploiting the technology he invented. Respectfully, I am a completely NPOV editor, this article was originally created in 2009, much earlier than "a year ago", and it is therefore not a product of any recent "deluge". I revised the article extensively based on earlier feedback, and am certainly willing to do so again if there is concensus as to what should be changed. I understand that many Wikipedia entries are "puff pieces" created by a PR agency, but can assure you this one is not. I believe Malcolm is both notable and worthy of a comprehensive Wikipedia entry, and that is what I set out to create. I am encouraged that others (to varying degrees, including yourself) seem to think so too. RogerDavis21 (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop !voting. It's nice to see that this person you happened to have met has made such an impact on you that you've dedicated so much time to him, to the total exclusion of anything else. We don't deny he has invented some some stuff, your spamlinks show that he has. It doesnt matter wether his "inventions" have been challenged or not. the question is Have they or him recieved any significant independent coverage? duffbeerforme (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, I was attempting to engage in reasoned debate, not 'vote' multiple times, which is why I marked my subsequent posts with 'repeat'. With respect, your 'spamlnks' comment is unworthy. I have made my case, and (some) others have agreed. Admins, in the absence of clear consensus to delete, is it not WP policy to keep the article? This has been going on for several weeks now ... RogerDavis21 (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Definite Keep now following improvements to the article, assuming it is all true. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Why keep? duffbeerforme (talk) 09:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per CorporateM, duffbeerforme, and DGG. I do not see the improvements referred to by Peterkingiron. The article is not a biography of Pete Malcolm. Rather, the article is so over-expansive and promotional that it should be removed and allowed to be restarted by a NPOV editor. The article has four main sections: 1 Software Inventions, 2 Business, 3 Media Articles, Interviews and Presentations, 4 Patents. The claims in the Software Inventions section that the three listed inventions are significant to their field are not supported by reliable sources. The Business section does not inter relates chronology and the information is promotional and about the companies, not life event of Malcolm. The 'Media Articles, Interviews and Presentations' section merely are further reading information that provides no life event information in the Wikipedia article and appear to be there to promote that Malcolm receives coverage. The list of patents lacks any evidence of interest independent of Malcolm and seem listed merely to promote Malcolm rather than convey information about his life events. The article merely is a disconnected compilation of information with little relationship to the ordered life events of Malcom. Wikipedia is doing a disservice to Pete Malcolm by maintaining this article and the article should be deleted. -- Jreferee (talk) 10:42, 2 April 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. No bias against a possible merge to a similar article, (specifically to Common chemicals), interested editors should discussion on the respective talkpages. Consider notifying a science/chemistry editor group? Keeper | 76 19:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of commonly available chemicals[edit]

List of commonly available chemicals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

• The quality of the list is low; some items are obsolete (does anywhere still use town gas, and does that count as commonly-available?), others are available as mixtures/alloys, other are things that are available only with post-processing. Many of the items address the reader in an unencylopaedic manner ("you will need" "be sure to read the labelling")
• The inclusion criteria are subjective, and tend towards what's available in the United States.
• It's not possible to imagine this list being complete. It could easily include every type of plastic and many biological molecules, for instance, but is based on what the contributing authors imagine will be of use to an amateur chemist. This puts it firmly into How-to territory. Pseudomonas_(talk) 14:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The nominator explains the issues well. Wikipedia is not a virtual Chemistry set. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Impressive resource, and a lot of work invested, but not what an encyclopedia's about. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, it's not useless, but could do with being rehomed elsewhere on the web. Pseudomonas_(talk) 17:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Impressive resources, with a lot of work invested, should be handled outside of AfDs. WP is a varied project; no single person or group has a complete vision of what [this] encyclopedia's about. A small group can decide on some deletion questions (whether something is a neologism, or has no useful sources, or is a hoax) - AfD works for that. But a small group should not decide that a large chunk of work done by some other groups needs to be deleted because the two groups have different visions for what knowledge we are here to share. – SJ + 02:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• A possible home for the content would be as an appendix for b:General_Chemistry.-gadfium 19:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  We have the similar article Common chemicals, which has previously been transwikied to b:Transwiki:Common chemicals. If this does get moved to the General Chemistry wikibook, that should be tagged for a merger with it.-gadfium 07:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep somewhere. It is a useful resource for somebody who doesn't know much about chemistry and comes across chemicals in the community or workplace. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. Nice try FBI or Homeland Security for trying to delete this article, ok maybe its not them, but I wouldn't put it past them or some other similar group behind the effort. The only reason I noticed this request for deletion is that I put a WATCH on it because I thought it was a cool list and was curious what else might be added to the list. I've seen far more worthless lists on Wikipedia, so my vote is to keep it or merge into another article(s). • Sbmeirow • Talk • 10:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • First time I've been accused of being FBI :) Seriously, it's useful, I don't want to see it disappear from the web, but it would be much better on wikibooks or somewhere. Not everything that's useful should be on Wikipedia, and this seems to be the same category of useful as, say, recipes. Pseudomonas_(talk) 13:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I use this list as a convenient reference to articles about the substances that are used in household products and items. Other sites don't have the base of chemistry information as readily available to quickly access this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.162.130.194 (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I say above: just because it's useful doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopaedia rather than, say, Wikibooks. Pseudomonas_(talk) 15:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and merge with Common chemicals (which is a much less useful and less detailed page on the same topic). To the nominator's arguments: the quality isn't that low - alloys or sources that need minimal post-processing are still quite useful. And inclusion criteria could be updated with flags or colors indicating the region of the world in which each source is easy to come by. – SJ + 02:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per above. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 17:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and merge as suggested. A perfectly appropriate list with a reasonable inclusion criterion. It's not exact, but it's meaningful. DGG ( talk ) 23:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Common chemicals then rename to List of common chemicals. J04n(talk page) 11:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I realise I might be on the losing side here, but the main criteria ("commonly available") seems to be rather subjective. Some of these commonly available chemicals are illegal to possess in some places, for instance. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:17, 25 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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 01:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forward Degree College[edit]

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

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

This article was previously nominated with the argument "Unaccredited tertiary institution. Fails WP:CORP, WP:SIGCOV, and may quite possibly fall into the range of Unambiguous advertising or promotion." It was kept, however, under the argument that it passed WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. That essay, however, very clearly states that "keep" is the common outcome for independently accredited institutions, not just for all educational institutions in general. I'm not sure if the essay has changed since then, if there is information pointing to an actual accreditation (I can't seem to find any) or if the !voters simply did not actually read the essay, but regardless this article requires some sort of significant coverage in multiple independent sources to be kept. Yaksar (let's chat) 15:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also (not that this alone should be a reason for deletion), this article seems to have been created by a single purpose editor, lending further doubts to its notability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 15:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Yaksar, have you searched for coverage in reliable sources in Urdu? Unless an Urdu speaker asserts that sources are lacking, I can't support deletion. See WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• My Urdu is basically non-existent. If someone were to find Urdu sources I would certainly withdraw this nomination. However, I would not feel comfortable simply waiting for Urdu sources to show up for a few reasons:

• There's no equivalent article on the Urdu wikipedia. This obviously isn't a deal breaker by any stretch, but its existence would allow an easy solution to this problem.
• The certainly notable "affiliated university" doesn't seem to have any extant discussion or information on this college. Additionally, the .tk url gives me pause.
• Unaccredited institutions do not receive inherent notability. Therefore this topic does not have any presumption of notability, and significant coverage in reliable sources needs to be found.
• Given that the website of the university is in English and does not seem to offer an Urdu equivalent, one might expect at least some sort of available sourcing in English.

• If this was a case where the independent english sourcing was simply weak I would feel more comfortable waiting for Urdu sourcing, but given that there is not indication at all that any is available in any language I would not. I agree that system bias is a major issue for Wikipedia, but that means we should be working to create more articles on notable topics of other cultures, not simply allowing articles that at most hold dubious notability without any proof of even basic notability.--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - way premature renomination of an institution kept in AfD in January 2013. Flawed nomination in any case; this college is affiliated with the University of Peshawar which thus provides accreditation of its degrees. TerriersFan (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all, especially for one with a non-admin closure waiting over a month is not grounds for a speedy keep. Additionally, you're going to have to provide some sort of independent source showing that there's the university is accredited (actually, it doesn't even have to be independent. A University of Peshawar source would do equally well) or else your claim doesn't really have any merit, since right now the only evidence we have of accreditation is self-made).--Yaksar (let's chat) 13:17, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have created this page and the website forwarddegreecollege.tk . I am student of this institute and I have created this page and website. The website is created by me and is not powered officially so that why domain is of .tk. For your confirmation you can visit this site Urdu News Paper Link English News Paper Link (These are the snapshot of ads extracted from aaj(urdu word, 'today' in english) news paper). Link to website for your clarification that institute is registered http://www.secp.gov.pk/ns/company.asp?COMPANY_CODE=0035280&id= 14:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Syedowaisalichishti (talk)

• Ah, excellent, maybe you can help us out here. While the link you gave does seem to prove that the school is registered as a business, what we need is something that shows that it is accredited. In the case of Pakistan I guess this would mean that it was certified by the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan. Alternatively, if you could show us some sources in any language from independent sources providing significant coverage of the university that would help show that it is notable. Thank you!--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In Pakistan, colleges are not affiliated with HEC they are affiliated with education board or university, Only universities are affiliated with HEC. In case of this college it is affiliated with University of Peshawar and BISE(Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education). I am attaching pages of college prospectus which claims that they are affiliated with UOP,BISE,BTE Image1(Prospectus Front Page),Image 2(Some other info), Image 3(Page which claim to be affliated wth UOP, BISE, BTE.)Syedowaisalichishti (talk) 10:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• It is affiliated with the University of Peshawar - http://secure.britishcouncil.org/pakistan-educationuk-country-partnership-institution-university-of-peshawar.pdf - so it doesn't need separate accreditation. TerriersFan (talk) 00:11, 11 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) 14:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Degree-awarding tertiary institution affiliated with an accredited university. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly.Syedowaisalichishti (talk) 17:51, 21 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 In Legend. As editors have noted, meeting one criteria for WP:BAND isn't a guarantee of notability. However, the suggestion that we should not maintain a redirect is definitely wrong ("redirects are cheap") and someone who searches for this person's name should find something useful. Given that I have to choose one or the other, there's a slight numerical preference for In Legend, and a stronger argument, so I've chosen that as the target. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bastian Emig[edit]

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

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

Non-notable musician. His name gets no hits on Google News, and no hits on Google Books. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:25, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Read WP:BAND bullet 6, which says "is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles". If we were to redirect this article to van Canto, how would we know he is a part of In Legend? If we were to redirect this article to In Legend , how would we know he is a part of van Canto? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply. There is nothing to say about him other than that he existed and was in two bands. Those two factoids can be mentioned in each band article without even taking up a full sentence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a man with two jobs, not a notable artist. The Banner talk 22:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - With all that being said, to which article should Bastian Emig be redirected? If an artist who is in ONE notable band should be redirected to that band, why should Bastian Emig be redirected to ZERO bands? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth makes you think that we have to have any redirect for a non-notable person? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - WP:BAND states "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases". --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That does not mean we must have a redirect. It means that we should not have a standalone article. If he is more closely associated with one band, redirect there; otherwise toss a coin, or don't redirect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - IMHO, "toss a coin" is not a good solution to determine to which band a musician redirects if both bands are equally notable. In this case, the musician's article acts as a "disambiguation page" of sorts. IMHO, it is better, when someone types in Hughell or Pitruzzella that it shows all of the bands that the person has been a part of, instead of just saying that the musician does not have any page at all, and requiring the reader to sift through search results. That is what an encyclopedia is all about. If it is properly sourced that the musician belongs to the notable bands in question, then the page should remain. If one or zero of the bands are notable, then the musician might not warrant a page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply An encyclopedia is about summarising information on notable topics, from independent reliable sources. It is not about creating a walled garden of pseudo-articles on non-notable people merely because Jax prefers creating permastubs in order to up the blue-link count on his forest of navigational templates, rather than just cross-linking the articles. There is absolutrely no need to create pages on non-notable people, when all we need to do is add a few words to each article:

• In van Canto, we write: Bastian Emig (also the drummer for In Legend)
• In In Legend, we write: Bastian Emig (also the pianist in van Canto)

That's all. Simple, and no need for the pseudo-article. If you want, redirect Bastian Emig to either of these bands, and the reader will find the link to the other one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Again, if both of the bands are equally notable, how in Sam's Hell will we decide to which article the musician should be redirected? --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:53, 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 6,000 ghits for "bastian emig" "van canto" and 19,000 ghits for "bastian emig" "in legend" ... so unless somebody has some contrary data, we should redirect to In Legend. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Article is now more substantive, and has more reputable references. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This is a tricky one. Most of the sources here are not reliable, so the only information we should really have is that he is a member of the two bands - endorsements are hardly worth mentioning. Personally I don't have a problem with a stub that merely states that and links to the two bands. This is a plausible search term for either band. --Michig (talk) 08:14, 17 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) 14:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:BAND states that a musician may be notable if they meet at least one of the criteria. Meeting one criterion is not a guarantee that an article's subject is notable. Miniapolis 15:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. --Michig (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As above, simply redirect to whichever of the bands he is most closely associated with. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep or Merge into In Legend. His name is a plausible search term for either band, no reason not to keep as effective disambiguation. A redirect should clearly be to In Legend - which is defined by his leadership. – SJ + 02:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep and comment: While the article is unlikely to grow beyond a stub in the near future, it does satisfies at least one criteria of WP:NMUSIC, although loosely. Also, take a look at the introduction of In Legend: "In Legend was founded in 2010 and is the piano band of Van Canto drummer Bastian Emig." I guess that gives us the answer to the "to which article should we redirect it" matter, right? Furthermore, he became part of van Canto in 2007, whereas In Legend was founded in 2010. He has released three full length albums with the first, and only one with the second. If I was to redirect it, I would choose van Canto. It is definitely his main band, in terms of the amount of work done. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 02:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - The article is now beyond a stub, and this is exactly the problem we run into with members of two independently notable bands. To which ensemble do we redirect? This is exactly why I have no problem with having such a "disambiguation" stub article stating to which bands the musicians is/was a part of. --Jax 0677 (talk) 09:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. As above, the where-to-redirect question is simple: redirect to the band he is most closely associated with. i.e. In Legend.
      I have just removed a lot of the content from the article, and it's now a stub again. Some of it was unreferenced, some of it misrepresented the sources (such as the claim that he is endorsed by MEINL); and much of what remains is referenced to the band's own website. That breaches Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source, which says that such material may be used only if "the article is not based primarily on such sources."
      Note also that WP:NMUSIC#If_the_subject_is_not_notable: "Wikipedia's goal is neither tiny articles that can never be expanded nor articles based primarily on what the subjects say about themselves.". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the only claim to notability has been hashed out thoroughly in this discussion, as for the appropriate redirect, make it In Legend, the first sentence their already links to Van Canto so anyone can easily find out all they need to know. J04n(talk page) 11:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, redirect it to In Legend, then. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 13:45, 25 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. While the numbers are close, those asserting notability here provide conflicting suggestions, and many of them are not policy based. The suggestion to merge, when looked at closely, is actually a suggestion to write a totally different article, most likely about the whole season. No one has established that there is actually a named event (March 2013 European snowstorms) that exists as a discrete, specific, encyclopedic topic. However, it is certainly plausible that the underlying information would be useful for some sort of "season" article; as such, I'm happy to userfy the article for anyone who wants to work on that (though, as implied by some of the editors, it may be too soon to write that, as we may lack the perspective needed to get away from WP:NOTNEWS). Qwyrxian (talk) 10:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March, 2013 European snowstorms[edit]

March, 2013 European snowstorms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not a notable event. ♦ Tentinator ♦ 13:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, Keep, since I believe this (supposedly related, I'm not a meteorologist) chain of snowstorms in Europe is notable enough because of the very high level of media portrayal, and the high level of disruption caused (some fatalities, thousands of cars stranded on several kilometers of highways, declaration of state of emergency, the involvement of military and special forces, involvement of charity organisations, and other very *uncommon* events happening because of the snowfall). I presume the nominator lives in the US, and thus it might be possible he/she views these weather and related event(s) as not notable enough compared to the snowstorms the States might get. Although here in Europe (at least here in Hungary) the previous days were far from everyday, and some reliable sources stated that "this weather situation was unprecedented" (having such a disrupting snowstorm in March is highly odd in Hungary). The government had resorted to order military to use their cargo trucks and tracked vehicles to assist rescuing motorists stuck in high snow sometimes longer than 24 hours. Reliable sources can support this. The weather and the situation what the affected - at least the hungarian, as far as I can cite sources - population experienced isn't something that they will forget in a week or two. Thus, it is notable in an encyclopedic manner.

Reliable and international sources supporting the above:

• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20130315/eu-europe-snow/

• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21806043

• http://metronews.ca/news/world/596652/hungary-snowstorm-strands-thousands-in-their-cars/

• http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/15/17327572-winter-storm-strands-thousands-of-motorists-overnight-in-eastern-europe

• http://uk.news.yahoo.com/winter-snowstorm-batters-northwest-europe-125728172.html

• http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/03/15/weather-europe-idUKL6N0C7FNJ20130315

• http://rt.com/news/snow-europe-hungary-tanks-333/

• http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/major-snowstorm-to-slam-russia/8137504

• http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/22925/53/

• http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/international/europe/2013/03/hungary_snowstorm_strands_thousands_in_their_cars

Hungarian (several more would be citable):

• http://index.hu/belfold/2013/03/16/katasztrofa_minden_fronton/

The Hungarian Wikipedia have an article on the hungarian facet of the situation:

• http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013._m%C3%A1rciusi_katasztr%C3%B3fahelyzet_Magyarorsz%C3%A1gon

The English Wikinews have an article about the western aspect of the situation:

• http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Heavy_snow_causes_disruption_across_northwestern_Europe

-Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Withholding judgment for now, but most of those links are ordinary news reports, which doesn't make them notable. In the least the scope needs to be expanded to cover a full season, not just this month, which is only barely half-way over. I realize there's a few other versions of articles like this lurking around, but many of them would probably get the same reception this one is going to get. An exception would be articles that cover wide geography and time-frames, like North American blizzard of 1999 (I'm sure there are some historic ones that would qualify too). These weather articles are tricky; wider scope (and the article's quite meager as is) helps. Shadowjams (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There has been continued snowfall across the United Kingdom over the past few weeks. Scotland has been hit particularly. Additionally, today there has been widespread snow across the UK which is unusual for this time of the year. Northern Ireland has had blackouts to 40,000 homes also. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21885817 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brefardan (talk • contribs) 14:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Most of these are just ordinary news reports. It fails WP:GNG. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Inks.LWC and the fact that the article is empty and has been that way for 4 days. United States Man (talk) 01:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but merge. There's probably enough notable stuff to write an overview article for this winter, say "Winter 2012-2013 in Europe" into which this could be easily incorporated. Snow in the UK is certainly unusual for late March, and there is an economic aspect to the story in that the adverse weather is being partly blamed for the continued depressed state of the British economy. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename/merge per Paul MacD. Useful information, can combine with other meteorology from the season. Systemic bias: The topic is just as notable as, say, individual nor'easters in the US and Canada (all of which we cover and have articles for because weather geeks from that part of the world frequent WP). This topic clearly needs work over time, but there's no need to delete it now simply because it hasn't matured. – SJ + 02:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but rename, possibly to 2013 European cold wave. The weather in Europe is extraordinary for March, see for example cold weather alerts in UK and a report from Kiev, Ukraine. Brandmeister^talk 21:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Then whey keep the page? 3/4 refs are about one incident, not the overall cold wave. It's a completely separate topic. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article just should be rewritten, not deleted I think (unless an article about the same topic already exists). Brandmeister^talk 09:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER there is no indication that this weather event will have enduring notability. J04n(talk page) 11:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep admittedly the article is rather thin at present and needs work. I like the European aspect to the article, and it probably could be widened to discuss the winter in the European region. Snowiest winter in 100 years in Moscow, on course for coldest march in the UK for 50 years. Snowfall leaving thousands without electricity across Scotland and Northern Ireland, the weather has also caused sporting event cancellations (international soccer and horse racing) and travel disruption. Military assistance called upon in Ukraine and Hungary. I tend to look at the catastrophe modellers and insurance sites for a guide on notability, so far only GAB Robins have issued a notice on the situation, however most of these groups tend to focus on insured losses in Western Europe.

(RMS reactions      http://www.reactionsnet.com/RMS.aspx Alert Worldwide     http://alert.air-worldwide.com/default.aspx GAB Robins          http://www.gabrobins.co.uk/surge-status.aspx Eqecat catwatch    http://www.eqecat.com/catwatch/).Lacunae (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's the coldest March in the UK in 50 years, there have been massive amounts of snowfall (12 feet drifts "up north"), there are thousands still without power days after the main snowfall, thousands of livestock have perished and where I am it's the latest lying snow since the 1980s. All of these are notable points and the article is worth keeping. Note that I haven't even touched on mainland Europe, but I'm sure it's been just as notable over there. Retron (talk) 04:17, 26 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 Redirected. So this title was redirected to another article on the album at Utopia (EP). Note the parentheses. Of the delete arguments here, WP:CRYSTAL is addressed by the fact that the album comes out tomorrow, and WP:NALBUMS is addressed by the fact that the article appears to be well-sourced. I know that the EP article was substantially less compliant with policy than the (EP) article, and that the comments here only reflect the EP version, but the redirect and the existence of a properly sourced article means we can close this out. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Utopia EP[edit]

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

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

Unsourced article about a future EP. Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NALBUMS. I initially redirected this to the artist article, but another editor reverted the redirect (without an edit summary). - MrX 04:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. She's an up-and-comer and I'm sure the album will gain notability in the future, but for now, no need for a standalone article. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 01:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Kerli HAS confirmed she is going to release the album, as seen here [2], therefore it doesn't go against WP:CRYSTAL. Now WP:NALBUMS, I'm not sure, but Kerli seems to be a fairly popular artist, so I'll leave it at a weak keep. Revolution1221 (talk) 00:47, 5 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, Mediran (t • c) 01:35, 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, SpinningSpark 13:21, 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. Michig (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bathgate Championship 2013[edit]

Bathgate Championship 2013 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This appears to be a local competition between non-notable players with no coverage whatsoever. Shirt58 (talk) 03:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 11 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) 12:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• DElete -- a bad page, for a NN competition. It is only from the category that I realise that this is snooker! Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 22 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. And I removed the product catalog for obvious reasons, other then that AFD is not cleanup Secret ^account 01:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ace of Clubs Records[edit]

Ace of Clubs Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

unsourced article that looks like a product catalogue! WP:NOTDIRECTORY The Banner talk 00:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 23:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 11 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) 12:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- This was a significant (but long obsolete) Classical record label, established in the period when the price came down from £2 or more to a guinea, which was still a lot of money in the 1960s. I agree that the article is a poor one, but that is a reason for improving it, not deleting it! Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean up - historically significant. Not being used as marketing spam; long out of business; doesn't fall under normal "not a directory" guidelines. – SJ + 02:18, 24 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 closed as Keep; withdrawn by nominator. – SJ + 02:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Virus 100[edit]

Virus 100 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Flagged for notability in 2009 with no progress on resolving the notability concern Nolabob (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm not finding an overwhelming amount of (online) coverage, but there are reviews at Allmusic and Punknews, which are both considered professional review sites by WikiProject Albums. The album is also ranked on The A.V. Club's list of 10 Surprisingly Good Tribute Albums. I have added a reception section to the article to incorporate these sources, and think there's enough material to satisfy WP:NALBUMS.  Gong show 22:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator because of the new information in the article as described above. Nolabob (talk) 01:48, 21 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--Ymblanter (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Avenue 52[edit]

Avenue 52 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I love this band, I really do. The problem is, I'm pretty sure they're not notable enough for Wikipedia. They're unsigned, I don't think they've ever charted, they haven't actually won any awards, and the only significant coverage I could find was [3], which is already in the article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The band doesn't appear to have yet reached a level where an encyclopedia article is justified. --Michig (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON, simply not enough just yet. J04n(talk page) 11:25, 25 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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 17:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Crowder[edit]

Steven Crowder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Crowder (3rd nomination) Stats)

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

This article has been deleted twice before. I was the editor who nominated it the first time that it was deleted, because it did not meet the notability guidelines. When it was deleted in the past, it was because there were no secondary sources on the subject available.

There have been a few sources published on him, but they are all on this single protest incident. I feel that this fits the description of a pseudo-biography and thus the subject still does not meet the notability guidelines. "In general, creating a pseudo-biography (on an individual who is only notable because of their participation in a single event) will require the inclusion of other biographical material, e.g. their date of birth and family background. Such information, in many cases, will fail the inclusion test, as it is unlikely to have been widely publicised in the media."

Aside from the few articles on this incident, there are no independent secondary sources on this subject published under editorial control. They are all articles and videos that the subject himself has created, or they were from blogs. I maintain that this article still does not meet the notability guidelines and should be deleted. Rogerthat94 (talk) 08:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This person's career has advanced to meet WP:GNG and start to nudge slightly at WP:ENT... and, differently from the version that was deleted in 2011, independent secondary reliable sources with editorial oversite indeed cite this version of article. Using an essay as a rationale for deletion is fine, but I prefer looking to WP:DEL#REASON and seeing if the rationale falls within that list of valid deletion criteria. It's a suitable stub and it serves the project and its readers for this to remain and grow over time and through editorial effort. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:BLP1E also applies to this article. Do we assume every contributor to a cable network will grow to become notable? Rogerthat94 (talk) 11:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E definitely does not apply, he's gotten news coverage for multiple events. Even though his union assailants will not be brought to justice in the eyes of the breitbartarians.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any reputable independent secondary sources about the subject that aren't about the protest incident? Rogerthat94 (talk) 11:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. Look in the versions of the article that were substantially my content, not the versions created by his acolytes.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 2012 CPAC "controversy" was one. It was also highly reported in left or right leaning news sources which I tend to avoid when I can find others. I'll even exclude Talking Points Memo if I can.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I created the current iteration of the article after the union coverage, noting that Crowder's press coverage had grown significantly. Not all sources available on him are about the protest. Is he super-notable? No. But I thought he had become notable enough to merit a new shot, especially when I realized he was also the "knicker" rap guy at at CPAC2012. Also, the protest is still in the news as of yesterday: [4][5] (Spoiler: No one is going to jail!!) The "psuedo-biography" issue is really about article improvement, not deletion. But it is a real problem with this article, and I hope this AfD draws more watchlisters to it. Editors keep trying to rewrite this article (look at the talk page for extent of debate), mostly acolytes of Crowder. Frankly, its a pain in my ass. Secretly I would have a little relief if it gets deleted.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a link to any of the sources you are talking about, that mention something other than the protest incident? None of the CPAC articles that mention him satisfy WP:RS. WP:PSEUDO doesn't mention anything about article improvement. Either a subject is notable outside of a single event or not. There's no policy that says we should keep an article up and wait to see if the subject becomes notable for a standalone article. We should delete this article and recreate it if Crowder becomes notable for anything else, per the policy. Rogerthat94 (talk) 02:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I was involved in both of the prior deletion reviews. The 2nd deletion was directly attributable to my actions because I didn't understand the deletion-recreation process back in the day. If it were nominated today, I would not fight the deletion. As for the current article, it is much improved over the original. Crowder has achieved notability in secondary sources via the incident in Detroit, his activities at CPAC, his activities in MMA, and his punditry at Fox and Sun News, his acting gigs (via IMDB), and other sources. The references have been MUCH improved thanks to a group of people who were interested in improving the article. And while I agree the early-life bio is a little weak, a lot of good effort has been put out - and continues to be put out - in trying to find verifiable information. Some information that was not verifiable has already been removed (such as the MySpace win) and continued efforts are being made to verify the rest of it. 5minutes (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• IMDB is specifically mentioned as not being reliable and thus not meeting the correct criteria. Could you provide examples of sources that do, which mention something other than the protest incident? The closest thing I found were posts about CPAC on blog sites like Gawker, and none of these were published by "professional journalists" or "professionals in the field on which they write." This means that they are not considered reliable sources and thus do not demonstrate notability. Rogerthat94 (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• When I mentioned IMDB, I am referring to his film career, not his biography. The other sources are listed in the article. I'll let the admins decide, based on this discussion, if those sources are notable enough. 5minutes (talk) 14:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• His film career does not meet Wikipedia:ENT. In addition, the article focuses on his punditry and mentions almost nothing about his film career (aside from a list of films he mostly played minor roles in), and it hasn't changed since the first AfD discussion when it was brought up. None of the sources in the article (except for the one about the protest incident) meet the necessary criteria, which is why BLP1E applies. Rogerthat94 (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't say his film record met all the standards. I said it was a resource for the article. Period. Nothing more, nothing less. Please stop reading into my statements. 5minutes (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a resource for the article, but it does not demonstrate notability. There are no sources on this subject, which demonstrate notability, except for sources on this one protest incident. Thus the article is a BLP1E. Rogerthat94 (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• We'll let the admins decide. I'm done with you. 5minutes (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is all too flimsy--a minor event here, a newspaper mention there. Drmies (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, subject has received significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources, however most of those are about a single notable event. Therefore, per WP:BLP1E the article should be converted to a redirect to an article about the event. Like Sandra Fluke, if the subject receives significant coverage for other events, the article can always be recreated. I understand that the subject has posted a lot of commentary work, and has been interviewed as well, but on those things they do not have him (the subject of this AfD) as the primary subject of the content. As a writer (or even reporter) it is my opinion that he is not yet notable per WP:CREATIVE. As an actor it is my opinion that he is not yet notable per WP:NACTOR. It is too soon for a stand alone article, he maybe independently notable outside of the event one day, maybe if he speaks at a national convention (that was what changed Fluke from a BLP1E individual to a independently notable biography subject), but not today.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:GNG has been met (HighBeam alone returns at least 30 different articles to a "Steven Crowder" search). I believe (from what I've seen here and elsewhere lately) that the proposer has far too little editing experience (102 article edits for Heaven's sake) to be in a position to evaluate the merits of one guideline over another (yes, the ones that have "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions" splashed over their introductions). A piece of advice: get out into the real Wiki-world for a few years and find out what it's like to build content. I'm more than happy to help you with that if required. GFHandel ♬  03:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The HighBeam articles are mostly about the beating incident. The rest appear to be passing mentions. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The sources in the article are either (a) by Crowder; (b) mention him only in passing; or (c) blog-ish. Am I missing the independent reliable sources that discuss Crowder in a significant way? If the Americans for Prosperity tent incident was his claim to fame, then (as suggested above) an article on that event should be created. --Noleander (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:GNG I from Russia. In Russia his video translated from russian language and show in libertarian site. I think it is glory. dwertys ♬  03:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.180.216.247 (talk) [reply]
• Delete One non-starring mildly significant movie role is not notability., and there is essentially nothing else. DGG ( talk ) 21:01, 16 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  10:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Crowder has received significant coverage, and not just for the event that those in favor of deletion are claiming, but for his involvement in media and CPAC. He is a relatively major part of the conservative media circuit and meets WP:GNG. Ducknish (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He gets coverage for things, not just people beating him senseless and cutting his tent down at an event. [6] Dream Focus 22:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Could you provide a source for any of this coverage beyond the one protest event? The example you gave falls under WP:SPS. Rogerthat94 (talk) 02:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not a self published source. He works for Fox News, not the Daily Bail. Plenty of coverage for the other thing, and this unrelated thing gets coverage also. Detroit Free Press covers something else he did. [7] Dream Focus 05:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I think you may be misunderstanding WP:SPS. The link to the Detroit Free Press is much better, but it still appears to go to one of their blog posts, not one of their news articles. Rogerthat94 (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, I just noticed in the last hour that Crowder got new round of press for trying to tell a "joke" involving Ashley Judd and rape.[8][9]. He must have seen this AfD was relisted and spiced up his act for CPAC over the weekend.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Has this event, or any other besides the protest, been covered in any sources that meet WP:RS? Rogerthat94 (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Mother Jones (magazine) is a reliable source. [10] Just look at the news results this guy gets for all sorts of things. Dream Focus 20:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, this wasn't published as an article in the magazine. It's listed on their blog section. Rogerthat94 (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It was written by Tim Murphy, a paid reporter who works for them. Dream Focus 21:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The author being paid doesn't automatically satisfy WP:NEWSBLOG. Plenty of websites will pay bloggers who aren't professional journalists or experts. Rogerthat94 (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Click his name. It shows he is in fact a professional reporter. Dream Focus 22:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• It says he is a reporter who blogged about a road trip. There's no mention of any journalism school, certification, or the word "professional". Rogerthat94 (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Tim Murphy is a reporter in MoJo's DC bureau. Last summer he logged 22,000 miles while blogging about his cross-country road trip for Mother Jones. His writing has been featured in Slate and the Washington Monthly. Dream Focus 22:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Saying something was posted in the "blog" section of a good news source is always a questionable argument, and getting worse as more and more dead tree publications go belly up. In any event, here a dead tree article just from yesterday, which will make Crowder's posse bezerk.[11]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is absolutely a reliable source. It's in the news section, not the blog section. However, it still only covers the subject in the context of the protest incident. Reliable sources isn't a question about paper vs. online. It's a question about self-publishing and editorial control. Rogerthat94 (talk) 21:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The other things he's gotten press on would be the 2012 CPAC knickers/nigger joke[12][13] and the 2013 CPAC ashley-judd-rape-joke. Quality of sources generally not as good as mainstream newspapers. There have also been a large number of less significant press mentions for other stuff, e.g., [14][15][16]--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Was it really necessary to write out that word here? Anyway, Both Gawker and Mediaite are blogs and fall under WP:SPS Rogerthat94 (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• What word?[17] That's why the event is notable. And gawker and mediate are not SPS, that claim is absurd.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 00:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not commenting on the AfD, just that the constant references to SPS above are misplaced. I don't know why there is a bias against certain types of publishing models, but sites like Gawker are more RS than most newspapers. Obviously some pieces are opinion, just like any publication, but they have a regular staff of professional writers, they update articles that are found to be inaccurate or even misleading, and they cite sources, usually within the text of the article. They do publish rumors and they publish quickly, but they do not present rumors or speculation as fact. Notice how this this story was not only updated to not be misleading, but they explicitly stated how it was updated and what was accidentally misleading about it. How many morning papers do that? If you have further concerns about a source's SPSitude, please take it to the RS noticeboard, and quit derailing the conversation. I appreciate that your bias is towards traditional media, but it is still a bias and does not help in this sort of discussion.▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Adequately sourced to pass GNG; see especially the NY Times piece. Journalists are notoriously hard to "source out," since other media venues do not as a rule cover those working for their competition in depth. The subject is an adequately large figure in the mainsteam media to justify encyclopedic biography. The piece can obviously be improved, as it most certainly will be over time. Carrite (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Adequately sourced. – SJ + 02:39, 24 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. This is quite borderline; the one source provided is quite good and in-depth, but one source isn't usually enough to meet WP:GNG. But if the person should get even a little more verifiable coverage, I think this article could definitely be recreated; I'm happy to userfy if anyone wants to watch out for that possibility. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Saffer[edit]

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

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

Non-notible person; no acting/film/tv or music credits or awards to merit article as drag queen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burnberrytree (talk • contribs) 22:35, 9 March 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Comment: I am sligtly concerned that there is a series of AFDs all-at-once and all being female impersonator related. Niche genre entertainment will be sourced in niche genre RS. More looking to be done. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

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) 01:44, 16 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  10:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet wikipedia notability requirements for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - general notability since 2004. Appearances on national television shows and in multiple national papers (listed on myspace comedy page); has continued performance online. – SJ + 02:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: "Good Morning America, Fox News, WUSA 9 Washington D.C., FOX WGHP Greensboro NC, FOX 5 WTTG Washington DC, The Roseanne Show": 3 of these are local news shows and other than his myspace, I can't find a reliable source for the others. Jason Saffer doesn't even have an imdb page.

• Delete looks like we are basing this on the info posted on the subject's MySpace page. The Washington Post is a good start towards notabilty but not enough to establish it. J04n(talk page) 15:03, 25 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. Michig (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous Bodies in an Empty Room[edit]

Anonymous Bodies in an Empty Room (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unable to establish this as Wikipedia-notable outside of an Allmusic article. Lachlan Foley (talk) 05:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to Swans discography. Can't find enough coverage to be notable, and live albums typically don't get the same attention as studio albums. Also, the article is very short, so preserving the information isn't much of an issue. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep AllMusic should meet WP:GNG. At worst, redirect to Swans discography. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has secondary sources, live performance albums are still notable.--Soul Crusher (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG requires "reliable sources" - "Multiple sources are generally expected" - but AllMusic is only a single source, and therefore doesn't establish notability. Read WP:RS for more information. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And yet a new BLP article only requires one reliable source. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPPROD isn't a notability policy. An individual can pass BLPPROD but still fail notability policies: "This method of proposed deletion is an additional tool to be used in the interests of increasing the quality of BLP sourcing on Wikipedia. Nothing in this policy should be understood to affect the core content policies or existing deletion processes." (from WP:BLPPROD) --Colapeninsula (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 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, Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:17, 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  10:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep, official release from a notable band, and some third-party coverage. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:22, 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. Per compelling rationale of nominator (and others, especially RockMagnetist)based on relevant policies cited here. Obviously not a straight !vote count. Keeper | 76 03:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge. Understanding. Skill[edit]

Knowledge. Understanding. Skill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article on a Russian academic journal. Main claims for notability are inclusion in the Russian Science Citation Index and inclusion on a Russian government list. The RSCI seems to try to include most Russian journals, so is not the kind of selective database that we usually take as proof of notability for academic journals. The Russian government list contains journals that are acceptable as outlets for PhD theses, as far as I understand, and doesn't seem to be particularly selective either. I appreciate the problems encountered by non-English-language journals in getting included in major selective databases, but even among Russian journals, this one is rarely cited: the RSCI impact factor (not to be confused with the impact factors published by the Journal Citation Reports) is only 0.13, meaning that in general only 1 in about 7 articles published in this journal gets cited even once in the first two years after the publication year. No independent sources are otherwise available either. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. Randykitty (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are really few Russian academic journals presented in English Wikipedia. Some of them have practically the same (e.g., International Organisations Research Journal) or even lower the RSCI impact factor (e.g. Nezavisimiy Psikhiatricheskiy Zhurnal, although they were established much ealier. Anyway it is the data of the year 2010. Please, look upon the number of citations at present time - it is much higher than it was in 2010 (http://elibrary.ru/title_profile.asp?id=11981 - 713). So, I would like to consider that there is a justice here and one will be so kind as to indicate the difference between some other Russian humanities journals presented in English Wikipedia and this periodical. It seems that most of them are not indexed in any well-known citation indexes. Thank you in advance. In my humble opinion, the Criteria of notability are too cruel for non-English publications. As most of the articles are published in Russian it is better to search for "Знание. Понимание. Умение", for example in Google Books Stonedhamlet (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those Google Books results, apart from this single sentence that tells us the publisher and scope of the journal, appear to consist of just a few dozen citations to articles published therein. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but, unfortunately, as far as I know most of the Russian academic books are not indexed in Google Books. Cf., e.g., the results for International Organisations Research Journal or Nezavisimiy Psikhiatricheskiy Zhurnal. So, why are these publications OK and this journal is not?Stonedhamlet (talk) 08:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (aka WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS) is an argument better avoided in an AfD... --Randykitty (talk) 09:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, not so good in all English Wiki's WPs. But still I see a kind of injustice.Stonedhamlet (talk) 09:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep-I haven't seen this academic journal but the topic seems notable and I broadly agree with Stonedhamlet's remarks.--Goldenaster (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It's not clear whether the Russian Science Citation Index itself is notable. So far the article on the index has no independent sources. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Ulrich's does not list a single index that this journal is on. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The main source of information on this journal is eLIBRARY.RU (it is also the publisher of the Russian Science Citation Index). It says it was commissioned by the Russian Ministry of Education. So maybe it is a reliable source, but I'm not sure how to determine that. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think that eLIBRARY.RU is reliable in the sense that we can trust the information listed on it. I don't think it confers any notability, as it seems to list basically all Russian journals. --Randykitty (talk) 16:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• But there is enough discussion to satisfy WP:GNG, if it is reliable. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• And Ulrich's is another source of information. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• To me, it looks like the site mainly displays information provided by the indexed journals themselves. I think they would not reproduce just anything, which is why I said that I would tend to trust the information provided, but I don't think that it is eLIBRARY.RU that has evaluated this journal and then provided the description that you see on that site. So I would only source non-controversial information from it (like date of establishment, publication frequency, and such). Ulrich's also provides information but, again, much (all?) of that is journal-provided and there's been a long-standing consensus in AfDs that being listed in Ulrich's doesn't confer notability. --Randykitty (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It is not listed in any index that is considered by Ulrich's. It is not in Journal Citation Reports. There is not a single citation in Web of Science under its English or Russian name. It is only found in two libraries in WorldCat - Library of Congress and Bavarian State Library. As discussed above, even the sources for the citations in the article are of unclear notability. If this is unfair, the unfairness is in the real world, and it's not Wikipedia's job to remedy that. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per analysis by Stonedhamlet (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:44, 17 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  10:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. This is a humanities journal published by a major university, and its the importance of the publisher which is the only real positive factor. . Impact factor is irrelevant--since humanities articles take many years to become cited & are then cited in a wider range of books as much as journals. That it isn't in isi or scopus is also not relevant because they do not have significant coverage in the humanities , especially not in English, and most especially not in non-roman languages. DGG ( talk ) 17:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The first line of the article identifies it as a science journal; it actually seems to be a mixture (sociology, philology, pedagogy, psychology, art criticism and culturology). I covered it both ways in my statement: indices for science, and library holdings for humanities. I don't see anything in Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) about the importance of the publisher. RockMagnetist (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The Russian word "научный", which is usually translated as "scientific", has a broader meaning which includes much of what English-speakers would classify as humanities, so I don't think we should read too much into the description as a scientific journal. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The only reason I brought up the citations in the nom was because the article mentioned an impact factor. We generally consider journals notable if they're included in the Journal Citation Reports, so I wanted to make sure that it was clear that this was something else. In general, I think that sizable citation rates show notability, but that low citation rates don't necessarily prove something is not notable. In this case, I think that being published by a reputable university really is a bit too meager (WP:NOTINHERITED). Apart from that, I agree with Phil: in other languages "scientific" sometimes includes social sciences and the humanities, in contrast to English usage. --Randykitty (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If I understand the ISI criteria correctly, they may well refuse to index this journal because of the language, as "all journals must have cited references in the Roman alphabet." [18] --Hegvald (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I believe Hegvald is correct; we can't use those criteria exclusively. And per DGG. We should be wary of systemic bias. – SJ + 02:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Re: ISI: there are many other selective databases that don't have this restriction and which could make a journal meet NJournals if they included it. Re: systemic bias: I don't want to appear biased, but if someone publishes a journal in a non-Latin alphabet, you kind of "build in" that the journal will never be of more than limited, local relevance only. I don't think that it constitutes a systemic bias on our part if we consider this fact (and I'm not so sure that it constitutes systemic bias on the part of the rest of the world either, in fact). --Randykitty (talk) 09:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The primary purpose of notability criteria is to ensure that we can write properly verifiable articles on subjects which contribute to human knowledge. I think on that basis, the analyses by DGG and StonedHamlet above are persuasive that it does Wikipedia no harm, and indeed quite possibly some good, to include a short article about a serious Russian academic journal, even if its indexing in non-Cyrillic seems to lag. Ray^Talk 17:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I closed this as keep, my read on consensus was questioned and I see the point made by the editor. At this point I think it best if someone else closes this. J04n(talk page) 22:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the arguments for caution with indices are reasonable, but - as I detailed in my delete vote - this article doesn't come close to satisfying any other notability criterion. So far only DGG has attempted to provide any evidence for notability, arguing that the publisher is a major university. The article on Moscow University for the Humanities provides only weak evidence of notability; but even if it is a major university, that doesn't guarantee notability of its publications. Major publishers of all kinds often publish non-notable literature - which is probably why the publisher isn't even considered in WP:NJournals. That leaves the arguments that this article should be kept to address systemic bias or because there is an indexing lag. If such arguments prevail, what basis would be left for deleting any journal in a non-Latin alphabet? RockMagnetist (talk) 22:57, 26 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. Keeper | 76 19:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Father Sebastiaan[edit]

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

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

I'm completing this nomination for User:Olderon, as there was a bit of confusion over its initial adding to the AfD and the nomination was started about 24 minutes ago and sort of left. I have no opinion over Father Sebastiaan's notability, but I'm completing this for the other user. His justification on the old AfD was "Suspicious references, none of them are really about the author, article seams more like a commercial page with links, rather then an article of an artist. Person is not notable." I figured that since Olderon was concerned enough about the notability of the article to want to nominate it, I should help him out some. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I did some cleaning up of the article and of the sources and I found that there are things out there about FS. I'm not entirely happy with all of the sources and given that a few of these are of the "hey, look at the guy who makes the fangs", I can see where some can argue that the sources aren't really in-depth enough to be reliable. He is, however, mentioned twice in one academic text, giving credence to claims that he's a notable figure in the vampire subculture. There's just enough here to make me think he's a notable enough figure for the most part. I'd like more coverage, so I'll continue to dig.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I nominated this article, because this fang-maker artist is definitely not notable enough. All the information I could dig on him, are like Tokyogirl79 said - "hey, look at the guy who makes the fangs". This person has his own fan base, but it is not too big and it is mostly teenagers who are fond of gothic cosplay. The artist is mentioned on some gothic subculture forums and articles, but all the information is definitely non-encyclopediac. Olderon (talk) 11:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per improvements made and sourcing available for further improvements. Sure this guy has a narrow field of interest, but he has been receiving coverage specifically for his eccentricities for many years... with coverage over many years in such disparate sources as Institut National de l'Audiovisuel (2006), Business Week (2010), Providence Journal (2008), People's Daily (2010), Relevant (2011), Daily Advertiser (2011), et al, appear to meet the requirements set by WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - You may want to recheck. Have a look again at the People's Daily. I don't think it is relevant. -- Whpq (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete First nomination on this topic was based on obvious Conflict of Interests WP:COI, but since there was no consensus, the article was kept. Now it is nominated for the same reason. User:Olderon said this article looks like a publicity page. And it actually does. What do we know about this fanger or whatever he is? He wrote couple of non-notable books on a vampire topic and was interviewed for local TV channel documentary-films that are also not really notable, since there is no trace of them on the internet what so ever, couldn't even find them on imdb. And yet I managed to look through couple of those interviews on his personal YouTube channel, and all the interviews are low-quality and talk about the subcultural parties he helped to co-organize and nothing else. Were those parties some big, unique or notable events? Not really. And all the coverage of him, that • Gene93k mentioned, also speaks only of those vampire-publicity party events and how this person (just like some others) is subculturally active. Are those coverage articles of him reliable? Yes they are in a certain aspect, but they don't stand the basic requirements of Wikipedia, because all those sources are dated NEWS articles, but Wikipedia is not a news channel WP:NOT#NEWS. The verdict is simple - this person is not notable, because he did nothing notable. Bigspray78 (talk) 11:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - NY Post, Bloomberg, and East Village all feature this guy as the primary subject. That represents multiple (I've named only 3 of the best sources for notability purposes) significant coverage (he is the primary subject of substantial articles) in independent reliable sources (all those sources are mainstream media publications) which satisfy our general notability guidelines. Any issue of conflict of interest can be dealt with through editting although I do note that at the time of nomination, I don't really see any issue with this article adhering to a neutral point of view. -- Whpq (talk) 18:08, 12 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  09:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:BOOK. Qworty (talk) 06:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Meets WP:BASIC. Source examples include: [19], [20], [21]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - However quirky, meets basic notability per Whpq and NA1K. Yes, being strange means you can get reliable sources to cover you just by saying "hey, look at this strange person". – SJ + 02:53, 24 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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 01:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Greene[edit]

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

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

The article disambiguates no extant Wikipedia pages.♦ Tentinator ♦ 09:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wow, Tentinator, you've tried to speedy delete this twice and taken it to AfD - all within 40 mins of the page being created! God knows how many valid pages we could have lost with that kind of approach. This is a page with 4 valid entries in main section and three valid see alsos (entries don't need to have extant articles to be valid dab entries - see MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION.) What could possibly be gained by deleting this page? How would it help readers? Boleyn (talk) 09:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Rushing to speedy delete things - even if it was invalid - is clearly not the best approach. If a merge had been proposed to Larry Green (disambiguation), that would have made more sense and been clearly more helpful to readers than deletion - although I would still be of the opinion that a merge was not necessary, as this page has enough valid entries to stand on its own.

You also did not inform the creator of this AfD. Boleyn (talk) 09:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: this dab page disentangles two redlinked people of the same name who are mentioned in WP articles, and two others mentioned in articles, and thus helps readers and future editors. The encyclopedia would not benefit from its deletion. PamD 11:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close as keep. Valid and necessary disambiguation pages cannot be deleted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. All seems in order per MOS:DABMENTION. older ≠ wiser 12:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Larry Green (disambiguation). The radio station owner and the Beacon Hill character are not getting their own articles, leaving two redlinks, which can join the Green redlinks. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per Pam and JHunter. Given this nomination by nom, as well as nom's recent nominations at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JECatt and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jürgen Cain Külbel and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The History of Leather in Relation to the Jewish Tradition, I would suggest that nom consider watching some discussions and participating in them and reconsidering how he nominates articles before engaging in too many nominations at this point. Nominations which lack a proper basis waste the time of the community.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:36, 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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 01:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once Upon a Time: The Singles[edit]

Once Upon a Time: The Singles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does this need to exist? What more could be added to this article? I think it's very rare for a greatest-hits-album to warrant its own article – it has to have some sort of historical merit or importance within the band's ouvre, such as Singles Going Steady, for example, which is arguably more well-known than that band's studio albums. Lachlan Foley 09:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No real reason put forward for deletion. This was a hit album that spent six months in the UK Albums Chart. Pretty much every music publication of the era would have reviewed it. --Michig (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the artist's article. The coverage may exist, but it's not really significant enough to justify keeping a separate article. Ducknish (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The combination of coverage (with more presumably offline), chart placements, and accolades that have been added to the article should be enough to demonstrate that it meets WP:NALBUMS.  Gong show 23:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:BEFORE and refs in article. In ictu oculi (talk)
• Keep. As this album is considered to be a classic by critics, this has to be kept. Carliertwo (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This album received plenty of coverage in reliable sources, plus some major chart success. Meets our guidelines for inclusion. — sparklism ^hey! 07:54, 20 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) Mediran (t • c) 00:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Twice Upon a Time: The Singles[edit]

Twice Upon a Time: The Singles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does this need to exist? What more can be added to this article? I think it's very rare for a greatest-hits-album to warrant its own article – it has to have some sort of historical merit or importance within the band's ouvre, such as Singles Going Steady, for example, which is arguably more well-known than that band's studio albums. Lachlan Foley 09:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Its existence alone being by such a notable band should warrant at least a redirect to Siouxsie and the Banshees discography#Compilation albums. There's much worse out there, though, than to have this exist amongst all the other stubs. At least this has a review and apparently charted in the UK. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't see a benefit from deleting this. It was a hit album by a notable band. --Michig (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The coverage and chart placement (now added to the article), on the whole, seems to be enough to meet WP:NALBUMS.  Gong show 23:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:BEFORE 96 results in Google Books, a good number not passing mentions either In ictu oculi (talk) 01:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability of this compilation is proved. This demand is unfounded as this compilation is very well known. Carliertwo (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Gongshow. Hit record with plenty of coverage to warrant inclusion. — sparklism ^hey! 07:57, 20 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) Mediran (t • c) 00:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Best of Siouxsie and the Banshees[edit]

The Best of Siouxsie and the Banshees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does this need to exist? What more can be added to this article? I think it's very rare for a greatest-hits-album to warrant its own article – it has to have some sort of historical merit or importance within the band's ouvre, such as Singles Going Steady, for example, which is arguably more well-known than any of that band's studio albums. Lachlan Foley 09:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Its existence alone being by such a notable band should warrant at least a redirect to Siouxsie and the Banshees discography#Compilation albums. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't see a benefit to deleting this, and there is no argument put forward why this should be deleted. --Michig (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Detailed coverage in multiple reliable sources [22][23][24][25]; appears to meet WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS.  Gong show 23:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:BEFORE, again. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The fact that there was a track exclusive to this release pretty much defeats the "Greatest Hits Packages Don't Count as Works" rationale. Adequate sourcing and good information. Carrite (talk) 02:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability of this compilation is proved. This demand is unfounded as this compilation is very well known. Carliertwo (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Major album (even if compilation) from a notable group. Shadowjams (talk) 02:20, 19 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 The Fall discography. Keeper | 76 19:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fiend with a Violin[edit]

Fiend with a Violin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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