Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 September 23

< 22 September	24 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. J04n(talk page) 19:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kazuo Nakano

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

Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which evidence the notability of this vice editor-in-chief under WP:GNG. Additional sources welcome. Language issues in play, the one source on the article in jp.wiki is primary but would, I would imagine, verify the basic claim of vice-editorship. joe decker ^{talk to me} 23:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unreferenced BLP, bye bye. Vice editors of weekly manga anthologies are probably not notable. No sources could be easily found. —SW— ^gab 23:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being vice-editor is hardly a notable position, and no in-depth coverage or sourcing has been forthcoming. --DAJF (talk) 11:18, 30 September 2011 (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 Church of Scotland#God's Invitation. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

God's Invitation

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

Either I'm too tired, but I don't know what this even is. An unremarkable...statement? Dengero (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an example of WP:WEBHOST or Redirect to Church of Scotland#God's Invitation due to insufficient justification as a separate article. PennyDancer (talk) 12:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect per PennyDancer. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. I have wikified the page, so it now answers the nominator's original question, but I agree that notability has not been demonstrated. It could have been significant at the time, but it's not currently mentioned in the Church of Scotland's web page Statements of the Church's faith which does have another 1992 statement in more traditional/formal language. The full text should probably not remain in the main English Wikipedia, but I have added it in Simple English Wikipedia: simple:Church of Scotland. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While not a well known statement, its official acceptance by the Church of Scotland makes it notable, despite few web hits. While not a standard on notability, the WP article Church of Scotland includes it as a major part of the section on theology. Hopefully more information on e.g. authorship etc will be forthcoming. Fh1 (talk) 09:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Inclusion in the Church of Scotland article carries no weight - it was only added there the day after this separate article was created; the editor was not logged in at the time, but the formatting edit immediately afterwards suggests that it was the same editor who made this page. – Fayenatic (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dengero (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per PennyDancer. JORGENEV 23:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Maybe when a book like Presbyterian Creeds: A Guide to the Book of Confessions is updated, it will include God's Invitation, just like it includes A Brief Statement of Faith. But maybe not. In any case, that would be crystal-balling. It may take its place among the creeds and confessions used by the Church, but there doesn't seem to any independent coverage of it now. 03:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Redirect. If the statement's only claim to notability is its association with the Church of Scotland, that's where it belongs. As all the information is already in the CoS article, there isn't any real need for a separate article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Redirect should be an acceptable course of action, as per CNS, but not a clean delete Fh1 (talk) 04:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support redirect -- However, since the confession is quoted in full, do we not have a COPY-VIO, or has the CoS made it public domain? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2011 (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) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 21:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diggy Simmons

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

Dubious notability. Sources are not significant or independent. His father is a notable rapper, but Diggy Simmons has not accomplished very much on his own, and not enough to pass WP:NMUSIC. No charts. No notable awards. This article has been recreated after being deleted as result of the last AfD. Ei1sos (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Would the BET Awards nomination, which occurred subsequent to the previous AFD, qualify as a "major music award" as denoted in criterion 8 of WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles? N419 BH 22:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: Well, my answer, anyway, to what I think is a good question. No, the BET Awards nomination in the "YoungStars" category is not a "major music award", for two reasons. First, it is not a music award--two or three of the other nominees are actors, not musicians (they also have a sports category, etc.). Second, the BET awards shows are just that--shows. I cannot find documentation of how nominees or winners are selected. Note: I would consider performing on this show as evidence towards notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For his own music career, does seem to have achieved some small notice, but not at a level that I would yet call notable. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely notable in the rap game. Every real rap fans know Diggy. If stuff like Feud between Karl Rove and Rick Perry is a legit article, then Diggy definitely qualifies.--NWA.Rep (talk) 08:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, every real rap fan knows notable person Run's kid, from Run's reality show--> WP:NOTINHERITED. I think that your other argument runs along the lines of: "If the bar is so ridiculously low that even XYZ article makes it in, then surely this article, however low in notability, is at least not *as* ridiculously low, and so should make it in." I think that the guideline would be that you should focus on removing XYZ, rather than adopting an "anything goes" policy. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No my beef is that the the Wikipedia community holds a vendetta against hip hop oriented articles. I challenge the posters here to nominate Feud between Karl Rove and Rick Perry for merge/deletion. I know no one would do it. I have seen tons of legit hip hop articles with citations get deleted or repeatedly nominate for deletion until it is ultimately deleted. And the AFD are usually sneaked through with only inputs from 3 or 4 people. Yet when most people are supporting to "keep" an article, the AFD is extended indefinitely until they recruit enough people to form a so-called "consensus" to delete the article.--NWA.Rep (talk) 02:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep. this community is weird sometimes. It's beyond my comprehension how Diggy Simmons can be considered "not notable". He's on tracks with Lupe Fiasco, Mindless Behavior and Pharrell Williams, he was a major character in a popular television show, he's famous; the average person in America will know who he is. He's a Youtube star. Each of his videos gets millions of hits. He has his own clothing line, which has been mentioned in several publications. He is a rapper who is signed to a major record label. How much more notable do you guys need him to be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.67.80.176 (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- "He's on tracks with..."--> WP:NOTINHERITED

- "he was a major character in a popular television show". Yeah, his famous father's reality TV show--> WP:NOTINHERITED. And where do you get "popular" from? I can't really seem to find more than WP:ROUTINE coverage, looking in Google, and it's WP entry's only external entries, to imdb and tv.com, seem to link only to non-notable, routine coverage, as well. If I'm feeling motivated, I will flag it for lack of notability and lack of sourcing; should probably be merged into Run's page

- "he's famous". Fame alone is not enough to meet notability, especially when it's a family member's reflected fame--> WP:NOTINHERITED

- "He has his own clothing line, which has been mentioned in several publications." Per WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". Is there any evidence that he's sold a single thing, let alone significant coverage from a RS?

- "signed to a major record label". This is not a criterion of WP:MUSICBIO --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition: Diggy Simmons meets #1 and #10 (and probably #11, but that would be hard for me to cite) in WP:NMUSIC, his music has been featured in an AT&T commercial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.67.80.176 (talk) 21:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be hard for you to cite #1 and #10, as well. At least Gongshow gave it a shot for #1 (below), but failed. What do you got for #10? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At the least, subject meets criterion 1 of WP:MUSICBIO. Aside from the expected MTV coverage (e.g. [1][2][3][4][5][6]), articles also exist at Billboard ([7]), XXL ([8], plus significant coverage in this issue of the magazine), Vibe ([9]), Daily News ([10]), BET ([11][12]) and RedEye ([13]). Concerns with WP:NOTINHERITED are understandable, and most of these write-ups indeed make note of subject's famous family; however, the focus is on some aspect of Diggy's own career - released mixtapes/upcoming album, singles, clothing line, etc. Further, his inclusion on such Billboard features as their ranking of the 21 hottest musicians under the age of 21 ([14]) and "Artists To Watch 2011" ([15]) also helps to suggest that this person is notable in his own right. Gongshow ^Talk 06:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No the subject does not meet criterion 1 of WP:MUSICBIO. I appreciate your providing additional citations, but I don't think that any of them are useful for satisfying WP:MUSICBIO. Let's just go through them:

- MTV coverage. You are right, it is expected--he was on his famous father's MTV reality show. Fails independence big-time.

- Billboard. Primarily consists of subject talking about himself and his career. WP:MUSICBIO excludes "publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves".

- XXL. Brief interview where subject primarily talks about himself.

- XXL issue. The link is to a picture, plus a link to the magazine article. The article isn't even an interview, it's literally an essay entirely of the subject talking about himself.

- Vibe. Another interview, subject talking about himself.

- Daily News. Another interview.

- BET. The first link is a snippet of interview, with subject talking about you-know-who. The second is a small item that's about one-third simple release info, excluded by WP:MUSICBIO as "trivial coverage", and two-thirds quotes from his management company, which isn't exactly an independent source.

- RedEye. More of subject talking about himself.

- More Billboard links. Okay, the pictures that the various outlets of the hype machine use are starting to repeat themselves, and the quotes, and the snippets from the press kit. Eyes glazing over. Getting sleepy, very sleepy... --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. From the most recent discussions I could find on the topic of WP:MUSICBIO and interviews (here and here), there seems to be some agreement - or perhaps allowance is a better word - regarding interviews in reliable publications, assuming they are not a form of self-publicity or press release. To quote User:Jclemens: "If someone is interviewed in Rolling Stone, they're notable. If someone is interviewed for an independent podcast, that's zero contribution to notability." Another editor, User:Paul Erik, elaborated on the "letter versus the spirit" of the criterion in this AfD, in which another editor, User:Ron Ritzman, added: "If an independent journalist decides to write about them and that coverage happens to include an interview, then 'someone else' has 'taken note' of them and that's the kind of notability we need." Further, I think there is a distinction to be made between pieces like the RedEye article, which reads like a traditional Q&A interview, and those like the Billboard article, which reads as a news story interspersed with quotes. All that said, while I'm inclined to agree with the reasoning of the editors I've referenced above, I fully acknowledge that there is plenty of room for interpretation. Gongshow ^Talk 03:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But he wasn't interviewed in Rolling Stone, was he? And all of the interviews/puff-pieces+quotes sound like they are coming out of the same PR kits, don't they? And even if you don't think that and want to view them in the most positive spirit possible, isn't the gist of the articles "yeah, sure, he's famous 'cuz he's Run's kid, but we think he has the potential to do something great" ? --> WP:CRYSTALBALL --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rolling Stone quote was to provide one example of a reliable source; certainly there are others. Regarding the rest, as I noted in my initial comment, most of the sources indeed note his Simmons family connection. However, to use the Billboard article for example, it's merely a passing mention, while there is significant coverage for Diggy himself, including one of his mixtapes and one of the songs from it. Gongshow ^Talk 04:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This will sound harsh, please forgive me, but I am trying to say "no" here: Was that the mixtape that was removed from WP on lack-of-notability grounds, or the other one that no one even tried to put in? Can you provide even a single to-the-point, rock-solid RS, or a couple of halfway-decent ones that aren't fluff, fluff, fluff? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 05:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That an article doesn't exist for an album, mixtape or song doesn't make the artist non-notable. I am only suggesting that there exists significant coverage for the artist in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. At a minimum, I am satisfied he passes WP:GNG, and at worst, he also meets the spirit of WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 06:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I took a stab at re-writing the body of the article, incorporating several of the above sources along with some others. I also learned, for what it's worth, that the subject - as a featured artist - has reached the US and UK singles charts, and as the lead artist on the US R&B/Hip Hop chart. Gongshow ^Talk 16:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nominator, no indication of notability, and insufficient coverage in reliable sources. --Gelobet sei (talk) 09:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 23:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly passes the GNG. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - yes, WP:GNG , although not highly notable - significant coverage.. has charted in the uk and the us.. Off2riorob (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - artist has 3 charted singles in the US/UK - doesn't that satisfy WP:MUSICBIO criteria? Sesameball^Talk 08:38, 27 September 2011 (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. –MuZemike 22:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of female action heroes

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

List fails WP:LSC. The list has no defineable criteria for inclusion, save the claim that each is an "action hero". The list is largely unsourced and simply a listing of names in many sections. The whole designation of someone as an "action hero" is fairly POV and opinion anyway, but without reliable sources, it's OR. This list is a mishmash of media ranging from a character in an anciet Persian poem (Gordafaried) to a character in a non-notable book written by a non-notable author (Princess Annwyl) to calling Lt. Uhura an "action hero". In the end, little more than a random list of characters editors decided to put on the list I think the existing list would have to be gutted completely and re-written almost from scratch. See the related WP:Articles for deletion/List of male action heroes Niteshift36 (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Originally, this list was part of List of action heroes. It was split into male and female lists and the original article is now a single line article. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:IINFO. Ipsign (talk) 08:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per Wikipedia is not a directory, the article's inclusion on Wikipedia is appropriate, as the article has an organized focus and is not, per Wikipedia directory guidelines, like "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". The article completely passes all eight points of WP:NOTDIRECTORY guidelines. Furthermore, the article can also serve to promote the creation of new articles, and is functional and appropriate as a Wikipedia article in list format. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:LISTN. Per books cited in the further reading section of the article, the topic appears to have been discussed as a group. The topic also appears to be covered conceptually in these sources. Examples (from the further reading section of article) include – Hopkins, Susan, Girl Heroes: the New Force in Popular Culture, Pluto Press Australia, 2002, Inness, Sherrie A. (ed.) Action Chicks: New Images of Tough Women in Popular Culture, Palgrave Macmillan, 2004, Tough Girls: Women Warriors and Wonder Women in Popular Culture. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999 and Heinecken, Dawn. Warrior Women of Television: A Feminist Cultural Analysis of the New Female Body in Popular Media, New York: P. Lang, 2003. Northamerica1000 (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list fails to have an inclusion criteria. Many of the entries are simply an editors opinion that a woman is a "superhero". Niteshift36 (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such should be removed, but the list should be kept. JORGENEV 23:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tough to decide what can be removed from a list that has no criteria on what should be included. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - POV list. Moving to neutral - without the actresses the characters names (I removed them) seem less POV assertions , I still have issues with OR, a cited action hero? the answer seems mostly to be a matter of opinion - Off2riorob (talk) 10:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But could lose the actresses as it is the character the list is meant to represent.REVUpminster (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just the actresses? How about the lack of criteria, the OR and the abysmal lack of sources? If everything like that was removed, there would hardly be an article. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the actresses. Off2riorob (talk) 12:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 23:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As synthesis. Completely arbitrary and subjective inclusion criteria. Fails both WP:LSC and WP:NLIST in every respect, since RS hasn't been applied or even asserted (as it applies to inclusion). I also don't understand how User:Northamerica1000 can so completely misread WP:NOT as WP:NOTE. BusterD (talk) 12:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is quite notable being covered in numerous books such as:

The action hero in popular Hollywood and Hong Kong movies
Gender schema theory and the tough female action-hero
Super bitches and action babes: the female hero in popular cinema
The female action hero in film
Cartooning action heroes
The Action Hero Handbook
The Real Action Hero Manual
Female action heroes: a guide to women in comics, video games, film, and television
Television in Transition: The Life and Afterlife of the Narrative Action Hero

The way in which we divide the topic between this and related articles such as action hero is a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy. Deletion is therefore not appropriate. Warden (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The current list is pretty crappy. There's no stated inclusion criteria, but the title of the list implies one, and the topic of female action heroes is certainly a valid one. The mess of entries needs pruning and sourcing. But as a list topic, this seems certainly viable. -- Whpq (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I see ARS riding in to save something else that they likely won't do more than some token edits on. Warden lists a bunch of sources, but didn't bother to add a single one. As I said all along, THIS article is crap. It needs completely gutted and started over. Could there be a good one on the topic? Maybe, but not as long as this one exists because people will look at this mess and say forget it. Sometimes it's better to start with a blank slate. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly I see someone attacking the ARS yet again. The AFD exist to determine if the article subject is notable, nothing else. AFD is not cleanup. And why would it be easier to start with a blank slate than to use what various editors have contributed over time? Dream Focus 17:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This subject gets coverage, as Warden pointed out already. Dream Focus 17:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might question why ARS gets "attacked" so much. Regardless, your question of why is it easier to start with a clean slate? When you paint something, it's better to remove the old paint and rust first, isn't it. You end up with a better finished product. There was no work done over time. There is a mishmash of names thrown in with no sourcing and a boatload of OR. This is a lost cause anyway......now that ARS has made it a pet cause, there is no way it will get deleted. I've gone ahead and removed the unsourced entries. Entries to the list should have a reliable source calling them an "action hero". No OR, no SYNTH.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is much easier to be destructive than constructive on wikepedia with lists here's another one: List of superheroines and there are plenty more. REVUpminster (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's also easy to !vote to keep everything, make a token edit or two, then leave essentially the same steaming pile that was there before. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Naming conventions they give an example List of fictional dogs which is not much different from what was here except the mistake here was NOT to put the further reading as the reference section. Lists are only an "index" to the article or if red to a likely article where the references should be. But it is all in the eye of the editor as there seems to be hundreds of lists that could be deleted.REVUpminster (talk) 07:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Inappropriate topic for Wikipedia per the criteria of appropriate topics for lists, since this list falls into what Wikipedia is not (Wikipedia is not a directory and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information). The list does not appear to have a selection criteria that is unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. The content itself is created with original research by synthesis as no reliable secondary source appears to have such a list. None of the sources provided shows an actual list of female action heroes, only mentions from primary sources or unreliable ones. As the subject of the list as presented in the article has not been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, I also do not believe that the the topic meets the general notability guideline and since notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and the article is original research by synthesis, I believe that it should be deleted . Jfgslo (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2011 (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 cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by external debt

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

1. Discussion in talk page. 2. I suspect there has been vandalism, but it is difficult for me to check the numbers. For these reasons, this article may be dangerously unreliable and too much hassle to put right. AWhiteC (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is our policy not to include excessively raw statistics. If readers want this information we should direct them to a source such as the IMF which tabulates these properly. And this is best done in a summary article such as External debt. Note that these figures are easily misunderstood or misrepresented. The UK has a very large figure - almost as big as the USA. This is being used in press scare stories but mostly represents the gross external liabilities of the financial institutions based in the City of London. This has to be taken together with their corresponding assets because these institutions trade money back and forth on a grand scale and what really matters are the differences which determine the net profit/loss. Failing to do so is contrary to WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Warden (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This list easily passes WP:LSC with a clearly defined criteria. Flaws in figures and updated data need to be addressed but not through an all-out deletion. In the mean time, a warning template, such as {{Disputed}} or {{Expert-subject}}, can be added. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clearly defined because the timescale of the ranking is unclear. The statistics used span several years and so the list does not compare like with like. Warden (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 23:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep excellent economic topic. There is a chart with same topic in last weeks Economist. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that wasn't net debt? (This is gross debt.) AWhiteC (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

being an "excellent topic" is not a criterion for notability. LibStar (talk) 06:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We revert vandalism, we don't bin the whole article. If the article is unreliable due to lack of reliable sources, then that is justifiable for deletion. However, if there are reliable sources such as the IMF but the article is in a bad shape then we should WP:SOFIXIT, not delete the article outright just because it is "too much hassle". - Mailer Diablo 15:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. If the article is kept, could the appropriate tags be added so that someone can go through it. Thanks. - Mailer Diablo 15:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it needs tagging with a "do not trust" warning of some sort, until it is fixed. When fixed, it should have a good explanation at the top saying (1) it is public plus private, and (2) it is gross not net. It could seriously mislead people in its present state! AWhiteC (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. 04:58, 29 September 2011 Fastily (talk | contribs | block) deleted "List of Fun 101 Episodes" ‎ (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fun 101 Episodes

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

Contested prod. List of episodes from a TV show that has no article yet and has yet to be aired. No indication of which TV channel airs this (that would be the bare minimum) No indication that the "we" in the listings is anyone but the show's producers, in which case that should be converted to the third person. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: List of Fun 101 Youtube Programing has been speedy deleted. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Nearly impossible to have something to get what this is. Looks like a list of videos someone plans to record and post on YouTube. Note the use of "we", note the absolute lack of info on later episodes, and that the author is the same as the above deleted article. note: I deleted the List of Fun 101 Youtube Programing article, following a speedy deletion nomination, followed the author's edits and them nominated this one as a speedy. - Nabla (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above. I wouldn't even recommend keeping an episode list for a mainstream television show that was still more than a year away from premiering -- much less one for a YouTube show that is more than a year from premiering, as this one apparently is. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unsourced. Could find no evidence of notability. Delete per WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 08:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should have left the speedy up. I see no assertion of notability let alone evidence. I have absolutely no idea what the article is about from reading it. I got more info from this discussion than is in the article. It is an episode list with no article about the show the episodes belong to. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conformalizer

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

Subject appears to be a non-notable software program. The article contains one reliable third party source, however there doesn't appear to be significant coverage and fails the general notability guidelines. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 23:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this is the industry standard audio re-conform tool used in the film and television industries. non-notable? did anyone bother to google it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.30.243 (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 00:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is one reliable source in the article. I can find no other significant coverage about this software. -- Whpq (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is about some sort of video editing software. We don't yet have an article on the process the software is supposed to perform, which suggests that this is a product with a very limited market and deeply back-office. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - insufficient sourcing to establish notability; created by an SPA so possibly spam/promotional. Dialectric (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cause of Death: Can You Catch the Killer?

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

No sources, it's just a game for the IPhone and IPod touch ChristianandJericho (talk) 11:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Some references showing that this is a notable game would go a long way to keeping and repairing this article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google search turned up no reliable, or indeed non-trivial sources to prove this product passes WP:VGSCOPE point 1. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 19:49, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) –MuZemike 23:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisting comment: This AFD was not listed until now. This AFD should close 7 days from now.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –MuZemike 23:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability -- Whpq (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 World MAX 2011 -63kg Japan Tournament Final

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

no evidence of significant coverage in third party sources to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 03:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete More routine sports coverage about an event that lacks independent sources and fails to show notability. Astudent0 (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and WP:ROUTINE. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 22:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable sports event. Only routine coverage. —SW— ^talk 23:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old Friends: The Lost Tales of Fionn Mac Cumhaill

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

Apparent promo (either for book or reviewer). No clear assertion of notability under WP:NB. Clear WP:OR and essay style review/exploration (of a type that doesn't seem to be redeemable). "Article" generally out of scope of project. Guliolopez (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Guliolopez (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Guliolopez (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. - Alison ^❤ 02:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an extended blog article, not an encyclopedia article. Delete as original research. Also very likely WP:PROMO violation--belongs on the publisher's blog, not in WP. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Monterey Bay (talk) 02:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not an encyclopedia article -- Whpq (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2011 (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. Several of the 13 sources provided are clearly invalid. There are, however, some sources that do not fall under the criticism of the "delete" !voters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jutta Burggraf

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

Delete as non-notable. No indication of notability whatever in article or sole reflink provided. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:Prof on GS cites. GS cites are 4, 2, 2; we normally require many hundreds of cites to pass WP:Prof#C1. Falls woefully short. Notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Simple searches show notability. SL93 (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], and [21]. SL93 (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which Wikipedia policy are you invoking here? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

WP:BIO except for the link to the Google Scholar search. The Google Scholar search just shows that she is a major scholarly writer. SL93 (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also doubt that she isn't notable because she published 20 books and wrote 70 works while being quoted repeatedly in books on Google Books. "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark.". SL93 (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notability does not arise just from publishing stuff. It arises from having that stuff noted by other people. As I mentioned before, we usually require many hundreds of cites to satisfy WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not even basing it on criteria 1. I'm basing it on criteria 7 which is where the quote is from. SL93 (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are 3 authority file citations in the article, including the Library of Congress. To me, this means that various libraries contain her publications and deem her sufficiently notable to create authority records for her. Humbly submitted--FeanorStar7 (talk) 00:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Criteria 7 of WP:PROF is met with [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], and [28]. SL93 (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The keep voters here (from the article rescue squad?) have presented no policy-based evidence that the article should be kept — being listed in a library catalog index certainly is not an argument for notability, and the passing mentions of her in books given by SL93 don't seem to me to indicate anything at all. The mere fact of publishing something (the only thing the article says about her) certainly is not good enough for WP:PROF and there is no other source of notability apparent in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No one from the article rescue squadron has posted here. SL93 (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WoS shows no citations to papers (the GS ones mentioned above seem to be for books). While she does seem to have published many books, most are held by only a few institutions: this one is typical. Agricola44 (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per the evidence cited above by several "keep" !votes and the arguments given by the "delete" !votes. --Crusio (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Over a thousand Google book results. Looking through that, and what others have found and linked to already, it seems a lot of people consider this person's work notable enough to mention them. Google news has coverage of them, but every link I click on is hidden behind a paywall. Dream Focus 09:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If reliable externals are found that extensively cover this person I will reconsider but nothing presented here or in the article supports that. Keep per 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ,and meets prof, per, 7, 8, 9 ,10, 11 - and 1000 google book results is meaningless, you have to ask why don't these users add anything to the article? Without improvement I can not support.Off2riorob (talk) 10:02, 29 September 2011 (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. Tone 21:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rickstar

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

Prod removed by author. Prod Concern was: No third party reliable sources to show that this person is notable. I do not think this has been met, none of the sources in the article demonstrate sufficient coverage for notability. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An artists who has been active since 2011 to the present (wow!), and has managed to release a total of one song that has received absolutely no coverage whatsoever in reliable sources. Falls well below what is needed to meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSICBIO 1-6 and 8-12. No reliable secondary sources to indicate that meets point 7 as the creator of New School Motown. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 15:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find significant coverage for this person in reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 15:27, 30 September 2011 (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. Tone 21:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay of The Sims 3

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

Nearly everything in the article is either original research, material more appropriate for strategy guides, or stuff that is already in The Sims 3. Hence, this goes against Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not on several aspects. –MuZemike 22:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) –MuZemike 22:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Delete, although the content might be suitable on some Wikia or other. DS (talk) 23:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have gameplay articles of a bunch of other games, why not this one? Zach Vega (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR trivia. If sources do exist, then the sourced material belongs in the parent article per unwarranted WP:SPLIT and WP:CSPLIT. Subtopics like this are made when there is enough sourced material to cover, or it spans several games, like Gameplay of The Elder Scrolls series. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 07:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR/Gameguide issues. Sergecross73 msg me 15:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - does not have to be deleted, should rather be redirected to the Sims 3 article. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 07:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's usually what's done if that's a likely redirect, even if everyone !votes "delete". — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 07:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attributes of some free software licenses

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

This table seems WP:INDISCRIMINATE info. Columns GPL v3 compatible and OSI approved are already included in Comparison of free software licenses. Mattg82 (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if only because there should not be articles on the attributes of topics. How is that different from an article on just the topic? Any useful info here should be included in Free software license or Comparison of free software licenses. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at the very least, the external links need cleaned up or converted to references. Them From Space 03:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Half of this is original research; I doubt proper citations can be provided for faux jargon terms such as "software brick" or "level of permissivity". The rest is exhaustively covered in other articles. Noym (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as content fork of Comparison of free software licenses. If there is any useful, sourced content in this article which doesn't already appear in the comparison article, a merge might be appropriate. —SW— ^talk 23:42, 29 September 2011 (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. Tone 21:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mathieu Boulay

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

Non-notable Canadian football player on Roughriders practice roster, fails criteria of WP:NGRIDIRON as well as the GNG. Favoid (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As mentioned before, its odd that a guy whose apparently on the practice roster according to Favoid is playing in the game today. Hes played several games this year, just because he was on the practice roster for one week doesnt make him non-notable. If deleted, he will be the only player on the Roughrides roster without a wiki page. This one is a no brainer.

Dao256 (talk) 16:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)dao256[reply]

Speedy Keep He passes WP:NGRIDIRON as he has one tackle in a game this season as seen here. Also according to the Riders on Pg. 31 here, he is credited with playing in 7 games this year. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 20:35, 24 September 2011 (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. Tone 21:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brock Beukeboom

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

Non-notable hockey player in junior league, fails criteria of WP:NHOCKEY as well as the GNG. Favoid (talk) 21:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Was in requested articles for some time. Legitimate prospect, son of former NHLer. Will be an NHLer someday. If you delete this article, someone will have to remake it soon.

Dao256 (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)dao256[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. As for being the son of a former NHLer that falls under notability is not inherited. As for recreation in the future, it can just be undeleted when/if he does truly become notable. Right now what you have said is just a case of WP:CRYSTALBALL. -DJSasso (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can be re-created when he meets NHOCKEY or GNG. Patken4 (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . fair enough. Maybe his article will be recreated someday. Thank you!

Dao256 (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)dao256[reply]

I would merge a few sentences on his drafting, trade and current team into a "Personal" section in the Jeff Beukeboom article and redirect there. Rlendog (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added the relevant information to the Jeff Beukeboom, so this can just be redirected to Jeff Beukeboom#Personal life. Rlendog (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NHOCKEY and claims that he will eventually be notable fail WP:CRYSTAL. No redirect necessary. —SW— ^comment 23:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if not necessary, but given that relevant, reliably sourced information about this person is present within an existing article, why would we not redirect this term there? Rlendog (talk) 02:22, 30 September 2011 (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. Tone 21:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yandi Munawar

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

Non-notable footballer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The Belgian Second Division is not a fully-pro league. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable footballer. Keb25 (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:Athlete. Monterey Bay (talk) 03:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject fails WP:GNG and has not played in a fully pro league, thus failing WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2011 (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. Tone 21:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recep Niyaz

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

Non-notable footballer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL at present. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league, or received significant coverage. Therefore, he fails both WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2011 (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 Chuck Yeager#Personal life. Tone 21:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Scott D'Angelo

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

No sourcing apart from Internet Movie Database; minor actress of no notability except marriage to Chuck Yeager. Note: previous AfD, four years ago, resulted in merger determination on grounds of insufficient notability, but merger with Yeager article was never effectuated. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redirect to Chuck Yeager#Personal life (where the subject is already mentioned), and protect redirect per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Metro-90. The closer should have done the job four years ago. Bearian (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The page was deleted four years ago, but it was then made into a redirect, and eventually someone turned the redirect back into an article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --Tovojolo (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soul F.C.

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

Non-notable youth football team. Claim to be "hugely known" is not backed up by any reliable sources I can find -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable local team; I actually laughed out loud at the bit where it is claimed that Chelsea is a semi-professional club! Giant Snowman 20:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable team. Senrab it certainly isn't. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" !voters have failed to address the issue that this list is inherently WP:OR. There is no objective criteria based on reliable sources that defines which publications are "important" and which are not. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of important publications in biology

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

Inherently POV and original research. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 1) this is obviously Notable, and acts almost as a portal to many WP articles on biology / biologists (with scope for much more). 2) Criteria (needed, sure) can readily be added. 3) Neutrality can never be guaranteed, but it's at once clear this is a list with wide scope (Anatomy, Insects, Genetics, Origin of Life...) so even if it began with POV bias, it will quickly widen to cover what it should. Famous names from school science lessons are all there. 4) Original Research? Perhaps this refers to the Description and Importance sections which admittedly sound like a university teacher talking. But the list itself is just a list.Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—I don't see that this topic needs to be deleted, although the inclusion criteria should be better clarified. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, I think this has been at AfD before and kept. That needs to be checked by the nominator and a link added here. The onus is on the nominator to do this. Second, the criteria for inclusion in these lists has been recently altered by the editors of the Geology list, but the template is included in all such lists. The implications of this change has however not yet been noticed across all lists. This is therefore a bad time to discuss deletion. Let it improve by the deletion of entries that are merely text books. That is the change made on the Geology list. Even without this consideration, the list should be kept. What is needed is that the selection criteria are better sourced. One criteria is "Breakthrough – A publication that changed scientific knowledge significantly". If this is the reason for an entry, the entry should say so and it should have a source that says the publication changed scientific knowledge significantly. Similarly with the other criteria for entry. The list needs improving in this way, not deleting. While it is not necessary for each entry to have its own article, the proportion of entries that do have their own article should be larger. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will help the nominator. The earlier discussions were under a different name at:-

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of publications in biology

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of publications in biology (2nd nomination)

--Bduke (Discussion) 01:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redir to List of biology journals. Current title is combative, extremely POV and in violation of several, consensus accepted, naming conventions (WP:POVTITLE for 1). What makes these publications more "important" than those listed at List of biology journals; in the neutral eyes or WP? If something significant happened in the publication past, it should be mentioned in the Article, or as a Note in a List, not the basis for a separation from the rest of similar periodicals. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 19:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Redirect to List of biology journals, per comment just above. Merge content into History of biology, History of neuroscience, etc., etc., etc. There is no way for editors to determine the boundary between what is and what isn't a "breakthrough" without engaging in WP:OR. It would be much more encyclopedic to discuss these published studies in the course of pages that discuss the breakthroughs as they occurred during the histories of the respective fields. Also, note Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists: normally our list pages are lists of blue-linked Wikipedia articles, not lists of items in text form. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear distinction between a scientific journal and a publication, so a redirect is not appropriate. Most of the entries are to books not journal articles. Tryptofish is quite correct that "There is no way for editors to determine the boundary between what is and what isn't a "breakthrough" without engaging in WP:OR". However, we can source others stating this. This is happening in some of the other lists of publications. We just need more editors to look for such sources (It will not be difficult to find one for "The origin of Species"!) and delete entries that do not meet the stated criteria. In case anyone asked why I am not doing that, it is because I am not a biologist and I already do not have the time to work on other lists where I have more expertise to look for sources. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would have no objection to redirecting it to History of biology instead. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Scientific journal ("intended to further the progress of science, usually by reporting new research.") & Scientific publication ("placing the results of one's research into the literature"), I don't buy that there is a "clear distinction between a scientific journal and a publication". WP does not need multiple lists of the same thing, with one apparently being "important" and the other, by implication, being "unimportant". Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a clear distinction between a journal and a publication. Journals, such as those listed in List of biology journals, contain publications, but that list is a list of notable journals in the field. Publications can be journal articles or books and List of important publications in biology is about publications, not the journals they might be published in. So these are no multiple lists about the same thing. There are no items in common. No journals are listed in the publications lists and no publications are in the lists of journals. Both journals and publications can be important and notable, but they are different. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well you should clear that up in the Scientific publication Article, 'cause it says everything in a Journal is a publication, making them the same thing to a reader. One being the parent topic of the other, and not 'equal and separate entities' as your suggesting. Just so we all understand, Scientific publication redirs to Scientific literature, so No there is not a "clear distinction between a journal and a publication", even to WP Editors, a publication is just a different word for the same thing. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 19:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to drag this out. The context was the proposal "Merge and redirect to List of biology journals. A merge means some content is moved there. That article just lists notable journals. It would be inappropriate to add details of books and journal articles. The editors who edit that list of journals would certainly not welcome us adding a section on the "Origin of Species" by Darwin. You are right that journals contain publications, lots of them in each issue. This article we are discussing lists those publications that are notable. Not all are, even if published in a notable journal. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they were WP:Notable, they would have their own Article (at a quick glance, I only count 4 with their own). The rest is External links, links to Authors and ISBN numbers. If you feel List of biology journals is a bad target, a merge (merge&delete?) to the individual Authors is fine, but this list is purely POV & OR. The Nominator got it exactly right. In regard to past AfD's; Just because they did something then, does not make it right forever. WP (along with everything in it) needs to continually evolve. (On a sidenote, I would suggest User:Bduke short-circuit a lot of future AFD's by revisiting all the "List of Important ..." of your Move log) Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 02:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, User:Exit2DOS2000 is right, the proposed "important" title is certainly not acceptable. And the list must flatten down to being just a list. Then it can usefully accompany History of biology without being WP:OR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the last Afd resulted in "important" being added to the title to stress that there were criteria for inclusion that defined "important" and that we should not just be adding any publication. Unfortunately this list does not follow that, but that means those entries should be removed, rather than changing the title. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question has been raised above whether entries to this list should have their own article in order to demonstrate notability. This has been discussed before on the talk page of at least one similar list of publications. The general consensus seemed to be that this had merit but was somewhat over-restrictive. Is there consensus that entries should have their own articles, or there are articles that have a substantial section discussing the publication (that might be forked later into is own article if the article got too large), or it is clearly demonstrated that an article on them could be written by several good sources discussing the importance of the publication. I entirely agree that this list is not satisfactory, but it needs improving by the removal of a great deal of the material, not deleting. It is surely worthwhile to have a list that points to the really notable publications in biology. However the absence here of biology editors is telling. I do not think anyone from the Biology Project has come here to comment, but I could be wrong. I am happy to have a go at a massive pruning, but it would be better if a biologist did it. It would also be good to see whether there would be consensus to keep the article if it was massively pruned down. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Crusio and I are both biologists by way of neuroscience. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The estimate above that only 4 of the entries have their own article is quite wrong. I found 15, although in 5 cases the article was not actually linked in this list. I have added such links. There were also 2 that had a fairly extensive discussion of the publication in the article on the author - these were "Competitive exclusion" and "Histoire Naturelle". All the books by Stephen J Gauld have articles and at least one should be added to the list. One is already in the list. I may well have missed some. I suggest that this information is a strong argument to keep the list but clean it up by removing non-notable material. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to History of biology, per Tryptofish. This list is pure OR. Who decides what is important? What is "important"? --Crusio (talk) 07:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, rd to History of biology, BUT open to non-OR recreation. The list as it stands is entirely OR. It strikes me that a non-OR list could be created, if you could source the opinions of historians of science on what are the landmark publications - On the Origin of Species, Gray's Anatomy, vital journal articles etc. But this isn't such a list. TheGrappler (talk) 01:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, the fact that "On the Origin of Species" and "Gray's Anatomy" have their own articles, demonstrates that they are notable and not OR. So if it was cut back as I suggest above, what is the difficulty? --Bduke (Discussion) 02:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, picking the correct level of "publication". If you simply go by "do we have an article?" then the page would be almost entirely filled by a list of journals, many of them obscure-but-sufficiently-notable-for-WP. And then there's the problem of "standard" textbooks versus gamechanging ones. The logical level of publication to include in an article like this would be the landmark individual publications: breakthrough articles and, from the pre-journal era, books. I'd suggest (but not demand) the logical format would actually be "Timeline of important publications in biology", even if that wasn't in the title. Obviously if a total rewrite equivalent to a recreated article occurred, I'd switch my !vote to plain "keep" rather than "keep but allow recreation". TheGrappler (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I have tried to explain further up, journals contain publications, but are not themselves publications. A publication is something that is authored by one or more people. However, it would be easy enough to make it clear that journals as such be not included. Indeed that point has come up in the past and journal titles were removed. The various lists of journals are for journal titles. What is the problem about "standard" textbooks versus game-changing ones. Standard textbooks do not, as far as I can see, have WP articles. Some game-changing ones do. What I have found interesting in looking at this issue, is the fact that a number of articles exist on scientific publications, but they are not linked from these lists of publications. Only this morning I came across the article on the book on quantum theory by Paul Dirac, a game-changing text if ever there was one. It was not linked on the physics list of publications. Finally, the usual criteria for inclusion in a WP list, is that the item has its own WP article. Increasingly I think that should be the situation here. When I find time, I am going to prune this list down to those that do have articles or sections in articles that might be forked if the article gets large. I will probably miss some but they can be added back. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the incorrect terminology. But I think you are incorrect re inclusion criteria - "has its own article" is definitely not the "standard standard". Very many lists contain entries that do not possess their own articles, or even redlinks as "articles that should exist but currently don't". Inclusion =/= Self-standing notability, in general. Of course, for this article it might be determine, by consensus, that in this instance such an inclusion criterion would be appropriate. But it's not the default position. TheGrappler (talk) 19:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The fact that the above discussion uncritically assumes that Gray's Anatomy should be included here says enough. An important textbook: yes. Notable: absolutely. But a landmark publication in biology? Gimme a break. Pure (uncritical) OR, that's what this list is. If ever such a list should be re-created, it should be on the basis of reliable sources that define/list landmark publications. Not some editors here following their own interests/preferences. --Crusio (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I take Crusio's point. Should Gray's Anatomy be included in List of important publications in medicine. It currently is not. I also agree with TheGrappler that many lists include material that does not have its own article, but when that material is challenged, the question of having an article is often raised. It seems that having an article is a sufficient, but not necessary, condition for inclusion. Having an article certainly asserts that an entry in the list is notable. Whether it is appropraite for a particulr list is of course another question. Having an article also means that this is not "some editors here following their own interests/preferences". The only decision they have to make is "Is it a biology publication". Later today (it is early here) I will remove everything that does not assert notability. It will still need some cleanup, but perhaps people can make a clearer judgment then. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me suggest making it, simply, a list of blue links, in the manner of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists. In that case, I might favor keeping, perhaps with a rename that removes the word "important". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't think that Gray's Anatomy belongs in the medicine list either. It's certainly been influential (at least in a part of the world, although certainly not everywhere), but it did not really move the science forward the way On the Origin of Species did, or Mendel's work. --Crusio (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but the list of selected publications is rather subjective. Biophys (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Final comment. I have pruned it down as suggested above to list only those publications that have articles or are well covered in articles. I believe that goes further than some people would want, but it does ensure that the publications are notable and the choice is not original research. I am going to make a few final points before leaving this to the closing admin. First, while I recognise that consensus can change, this list and quite a few similar lists have been around for a long while and many editors have contributed to them and found then useful. Second, this discussion and outcome will have an impact on the other lists. I think only one of the other lits of publications has been deleted and that was not a list of science publications. So in commenting further and in closing this AfD, please take them into account. Third, it is time to decide what we want with all these lists. I do not think that is deletion, but rather to improve them so every entry has a source that asserts their notability or links to an article on the publication where notability is demonstrated. These are useful lists and they could be better. I have left the "descriptions" and "importance" sections, as those arise from the template at the top, which is on all these lists of publications. Whether that is changed, is for another discussion. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pruning it down has still not corrected the POV or OR problems. The 'List' has no citations. Whom considers these Important & What makes anything not listed (by implication) 'unimportant'. Please read: Wikipedia:Common knowledge. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 20:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Those problems remain. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So do I. They are inherent to this list, I fear. --Crusio (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What makes this list different from List of bicycle brands and manufacturing companies which was one of the first I came across in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists? That list has only one reference. Is it the "important" in the title? That could be changed, but given that the last AfD added it, I would like a fuller discussion that covered all the lists of science publications. Is it the added text describing the publication, so it is not a bare list? Well, we could prune it down to that, but again, I would prefer a wider discussion because it affects all the other lists. That is why I left those in. I have hesitated to inform editors of the other lists as that might be considered inappropriate. However, there has been a lot of work recently on the Geology list and I do not think any of those editors have commented here. Would someone else care to draw the attention of the editors on all these science lists to this discussion? --Bduke (Discussion) 03:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just come to this discussion yesterday, and am following this discussion closely. I feel it is best to see let this afd run-its-course before deciding on-a-plan-of-action on the other lists, thought I feel exactly that this afd will affect the other lists, specifically the ones without verified references.Curb Chain (talk) 10:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think List of important publications in sociology was the list that was deleted. The deletion debate doesn't tell us much, and I am not sure if there are compilations of notable sociological works as a search turns up nothing, but I do not know if such as done before it was delete.Curb Chain (talk) 10:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see how this we could ever define "important" as in the sense of "landmark". So many things fall within the continuum of important and unimportant.Curb Chain (talk) 05:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was a Keep at the start of this discussion, which has demonstrated that the "important" creates contention amongst us. Bduke has laboured mightily to improve the list and to argue its corner, and indeed the shortened list has its attractions - I feel I might have picked the same ones if I'd tried hard enough. But the venture now seems doomed, and I feel the better course is to rely on the main Biology articles. So sadly Delete. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a contributor to the chemistry and physics lists, I feel that these lists do provide a useful guide to the landmark literature in each science. The statistics for this biology list show 1081 page views for August 2011 (before the beginning of this discussion) so there are a significant number of readers who are interested. The information here is different from that in History of biology which describes the evolution of ideas, and I think that integrating the two articles would leave the information about key publications harder to find in a massive article. This list of key publications (articles and monographs) is also quite different from a list of entire biology journals; in fact I would delete the list of journals rather than this list.

The weaknesses in the current list system can be dealt with. The 207th textbook in a given subfield should not be included even if today's students use it; only the one or two which defined the subfield historically. Also, the inclusion of each publication should be justified by an external opinion whose source is identifiable. Not "Darwin's Origin of Species is a very important book", but "X has described Darwin's Origin of Species as ....", with a proper reference of course. We can use modern textbooks as sources for the historical documents, since the modern textbooks do have identifiable authors. Dirac66 (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a duplicate of an existing article. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yue Guang Guang Chang

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

Fails WP:Notability. Google search on the subject brings up 29 results, all of which appear to be no more than trivial references to the subject. Article is entirely unsourced. Article consists mostly of anecdotes about the subject, most of which are unverifiable and some of which are promotional/peacockery. PROD decline with insufficient assertion of notability. Five 31 story buildings does not equal notability. Delete. Safiel (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This page is roughly the same as Moonlight square, which has also been nominated for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moonlight square). The two articles were created by a student who is part of a school project organized by a professor at Nanjing Normal University. Many experienced editors are helping the students develop their editing skills. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons as indicated in the "delete" recommendations at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moonlight square, because that article describes the same housing estate as this one does. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Welcome 2 America. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome 2 America Euro 2011 Tour

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

Outdated. No sources, tours are rarely notable. Deprodded without comment. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It just needs some work. KopJ (talk) 04:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Yes, it needs work. However, it seems the work it needs is not possible. If significant coverage does not exist, no amount of work would be sufficient. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT Lugnuts (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Let me clarify. There are insufficient sources. I cannot create such sources. If you know of such sources, feel free to add them. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very poor sourcing (to the point that it's tough to call the cited sources "sources" for this article). No evidence of notability. As 10# & his crew state, tours are rarely notable. This isn't one of the few that is. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm pretty sure a European concert tour from one of the most well known artists on the planet is notable, and will have plenty of coverage in the press. Lugnuts (talk) 09:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - While you may be sure, most tours are not notable. Per WP:CONCERT TOUR, we need "significant coverage in independent reliable sources... in terms of artistic approach, financial success, relationship to audience, or other such terms". At them moment we have no such coverage. Rather, we have "(s)ources which merely establish that a tour happened". As a result, the tour "should be covered in a section on the artist's page rather than creating a dedicated article." - SummerPhD (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT Lugnuts (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am unable to find the sources that need to exist for this tour to be notable. If you can find them, feel free to fix it. Your claim that you are "pretty sure" it is notable does not demonstrate that it is notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - To Welcome 2 America as another leg of the same tour. Karl 334 ^{☞TALK to ME ☜} 16:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The target article's main sources, "drfunkenberry" and "princevault" don't seem to be reliable sources, so I'm unsure what good a merge would do... - SummerPhD (talk) 04:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - I added more links from the official newspapers' webpages. They are interviews of the tour and I fixed it well. --Serene78 (talk) 11:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Serene78[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Welcome 2 America as per User:Karl334. Seems a logical compromise to me. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:03, 30 September 2011 (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. Wikipedia is not censored. (And this really should have closed speedy-keep.) The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Impact play

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

Reason HelenGuestGuinnee (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC) cat=? I am new to Wikipedia so sorry if i complete any sections wrong. Impact Play is the name of a Synthetic Pay Surface for Childrens Playgrounds and sports facilities.(www.impactplay.co.uk) . Can this S & M information page not be included on another page instead of having a page to itself that google recognises and is picked up by people wanting something very different? Again - appolgies if I have completed any instuctions here for asking about a page.[reply]

Keep A play surface for children and an S&M practice may not be the greatest of bedfellows but they can be disambiguated. The existence of an article for one does not preclude the existence of an article for the other. NtheP (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unfortunately, this is not a reason for deletion. Sometimes, innocent things for kids and sexual things for adults happen to share the same name. Moswento (talk | contribs) 17:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Santorum argument doesn't apply. —SW— ^gossip 23:49, 29 September 2011 (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. Mkativerata (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clark Avenue

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

Non notable road. Serves houses, condominiums, and possibly a notable place or two. However, the road itself has no claim to fame. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 14:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "major urban thoroughfare" of 4 lanes for its entire length, thus Notable. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 08:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Niether four lanes nor being a major urban thoroughfare (which it most certainly isn't. Its a main road in an area of almost pure subdivisions) gives something notability. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nondescript, non-notable road in suburbs of Toronto. PK T(alk) 20:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Google search results for this road return buildings and businesses along the road, but nothing about the road itself. Imzadi 1979 → 19:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable road. SL93 (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've driven on Clark. It's not a major urban thoroughfare and it isn't notable. This is based on personal opinion, and a lack of significant coverage about the road as opposed to simply mentioning the road. -- Whpq (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason why this can't be merged into Thornhill, Ontario or Vaughan? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even think that in the context of those places the road is important, despite the unsourced indication in the article. Yonge Street is by far and large the centre road for Thornhill. The attractions are already listed in the appropriate articles, generally (but could be added if not). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Floydian. There's nothing worth merging. It's just a road. -- Whpq (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2011 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Superman curse

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

This article has gone through several variations over the years. In its current incarnation, it appears to be mostly a reiteration of a single article which focused on the idea of debunking the idea of a curse on the Superman role. As such, Teri Hatcher, whom nobody considers a victim of a "Superman curse", as far as I know, is listed under "alleged victims of the curse" -- where it is denied that she has suffered from any Superman curse. In fact, she is mentioned before either George Reeves or Christopher Reeve, the two people most commonly associated with the idea of a curse on the Superman role. Although I agree that the idea of a Superman curse ought to be discredited, I don't think this article really accomplishes anything by presenting the idea of a "Superman curse" only to spend most of its space debunking that idea. This might be worth a couple of sentences in the George Reeves or Christopher Reeve articles, but I don't think it is worth an article of its own. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hatcher is listed before Reeves or Reeve because the people in question are listed in alphabetical order. The content regarding Hatcher reltes Brian McKernan's argument that she is one of the persons involved in a Superman adaptation whose success disproves the curse. I've renamed the main section "People involved with Superman in media" to reflect this. Nightscream (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article seems to me to focus too much on presenting evidence about whether such a curse may or may not actually exist (which is unencyclopedic nonsense), and not enough on the sort of material that might make the article encyclopedic, which is the history of the discussion and comment that the supposed "curse" has generated. OK, there are a few "so-and-so says" quotes, but the laundry list of people's misfortunes seems a bit silly. 86.160.213.4 (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a tough call. About a dozen books mention the "superman curse" in passing, but none have an entire chapter dedicated to it or analyze it in detail. There are quite a few mentions on the internet: but mostly informal blogs. The only decent sources is CNN.com (already cited in the article) but even that is CNN.com, not CNN proper, and it is a tiny article with no real depth. The problem with including this article in WP is that it become a self-justifying article: WP would help promote this marginal urban legend. And, BTW, Snopes.com does not mention the superman curse at all. Put all that together = delete. --Noleander (talk) 01:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Patent nonsense.--Cox wasan (talk) 07:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are enough reliable sources to establish notability. For instance, http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/WolfFiles/story?id=2103736 and http://www.torontosun.com/entertainment/movies/2011/04/01/17838401.html 174.252.73.73 (talk) 12:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 174... Plenty of reliable sources exist. Besides that, and the smaller CNN article, there is the Evening Standard, the Metro, Wired, and no doubt plenty of others, that was less than a minute's web searching. --GRuban (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks like there are plenty of reliable sources about the topic: Wired, Variety, The Guardian, Telegraph, etc. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Wired article cited above cites Wikipedia as one of its two sources (the other is IMDb). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stupid, but people in reliable publications are talking about it so notable. Readers might want to know about it. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The sourcing has some serious problems:
Richard Prior entry - source only mentions multiplesclerosis - claiming that his other problems are due to this curse is a violation of WP:SYNTH
George Reeves - first source does not treat the curse as a "superstition" (which the article claims it is)
Kate Bosworth - cited article states "reportedly". No evidence Bosworth actually believes/said that. Clear violation of WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:NEWSORG ("Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should include information verified by reliable sources")
Dean Cain - has had a succesful career, the only person claiming he's victim of a curse is the author of the opinion piece cited (see WP:V, WP:RS)
Brandon Routh - makes throwaway (i.e. trivial) comment that no curse exists.
Christopher Reeve - CNN citation only mentions paralysis, article uses it to infer his death is due to the curse (violation of WP:SYNTH)
Teri Hatcher - has had a succesful career, the only person linking her to a curse is the author of the opinion piece cited.
In summing up, this article is a tabloid-esque series of policy violations that is mostly based on a single ABC News opinion piece and attempts to use other sources to back up original research. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any relevant articles to the Superman (film series) page and Delete. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:11, 30 September 2011 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Xu Song

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

General notability concerns per WP:MUSICBIO. The subject of this bio does not appear to have met any of the criteria as far as I can determine. RA (talk) 11:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A search of Google News archives for his name and the name of his second CD yieled 22 results, and using the name of his third CD yielded 68 results in the archive and 23 results in a standard recent news search. Many of these appear to be significant coverage about the subject, and I wouldn't like to assert that none of these sources are reliable.--Pontificalibus (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 14:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 14:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google searches yielded 182,000 results (many of which are YouTube clips); however, there are no reliable external articles writing explicitly about the subject. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 23:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You checked them all? --Pontificalibus (talk) 07:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njnu-ban-xueshenghao (talk • contribs) 11:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

93 articles on news.google.com search

http://www.google.com.hk/search?hl=zh-CN&gl=cn&tbm=nws&btnmeta_news_search=1&q=%22%E8%AE%B8%E5%B5%A9%22

5.7 million google hits for Chinese name.

http://www.google.com.hk/search?q=%22%E8%AE%B8%E5%B5%A9%22&hl=zh-CN&newwindow=1&safe=strict&gl=cn&prmd=ivnso&ei=-YZ0ToayJIWYiAf3rPzADQ&start=10&sa=N&biw=1024&bih=358

Clipping from Hainan Daily News http://bbs.vaecn.com/thread-677608-1-1.html

China Daily: http://ws.chinadaily.com.cn/2011/0906/2425.shtml

Njnu-ban-xueshenghao (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Userfy created as yet another test article by the many sockpuppets (or meatpuppets) with these similar NNU names, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=NNU&namespace=3 If these are University students creating similar accounts then their teacher or campus ambassador needs to take some responsibility for control. Fæ (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion changed to userfy (unless improved to address MUSICBIO) based on later explanation that these are student accounts and we now know who to contact about general problems. Cheers Fæ (talk) 05:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentIndeed, these NNU accounts are my 130+ students at Nanjing Normal University. They are English or CSL majors, and as part of a writing course I assigned them the creation of a useful Wikipedia article, according to Wikipedia's citation, notability, NPOV etc. guidelines. It is a genuine good faith enterprise to allow them to contribute to Wikipedia's body of knowledge and help them improve their writing and interact with an independent system which will approve, improve or delete their work according to its quality. I am not aware of any Wikipedia policy on such a project, and would be grateful for any guidance others can provide. I commented on this particular article because it does see to me that Chinese-language searches of 许嵩 easily demonstrates notability, as per the evidence adduced. Perhaps I should have let this debate take its course without comment. Obviously this article--and many others created my students--needs a lot of work, which will be ongoing throughout term. As I say, comments and corrections welcome. Apologies for any inconvenience.

Njnu-ban-xueshenghao (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I now see this portal, of which I was unaware. I will try to improve our project according to these guidelines. Njnu-ban-xueshenghao (talk) 01:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this and the two sources given by Njnu-ban-xueshenghao above are sufficient to meet the general notability guideline. There are also plenty more articles out there as I demonstrated above. We certainly don't userfy articles because they were created by students --Pontificalibus (talk) 08:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's correct. My userfy opinion is based on the WP:MUSICBIO criteria rather than who the original creator was. Examining the additional source you have put forward about a autograph session appears to add nothing extra that would address the criteria. Fæ (talk) 08:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI think Notability can be established without too much difficulty, but the student really ought to be doing that herself. I have no problem with the article being userfied while she improves and sources it. Njnu-ban-xueshenghao (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/improve perfect opportunity to counter systematic bias. Chinese sources are enaugh to establish notability. Agathoclea (talk) 12:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, could you highlight which of the sources were sufficient to address the criteria? There is no objection here to using non-English sources, the only concern is addressing MUSICBIO. Fæ (talk) 12:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I leave the chinese sources to the chinese editors, but the English chatter on the celebrety gossip sites suggests to me that there is enaugh to satisfy GNG but obviously MUSICBIO will be a nice addon. My point being that we have a large systematic bias toward English subjects as sourcing is difficult. At the moment we have a dedicated group of Chinese students whose edits are watched by a good number of established editors as well as their teacher who are writing about subjects which if they where in the USA could be sourced without a problem. These articles are growing at the moment as these students learn to source things our way but that will need a few more days or even weeks until they get it perfect. Just saw an edit today where someone fixed one of those articles of a mistake that I made in my very first aricle. Dejavu. Agathoclea (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Forum chatter on gossip sites does not satisfy MUSICBIO or RS and an article created by a student is not a reason to ignore policy. Userfication is a perfectly friendly step to take and considering that we let things ride for 7 days while we talk about taking any possible action, the grace time is surely sufficient for someone interested to find one reliable source to address the notability policy? --Fæ (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Currently the twelfth-most downloaded singer from Baidu (which is probably the largest source of MP3s). I don't know if this chart is official enough, but it's where much of China gets its music. Note Lady Gaga at 13.
http://list.mp3.baidu.com/top/top200.html Njnu-ban-xueshenghao (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, baidu.com is a unambiguous failure as a source or a suitable external link. Fæ (talk) 15:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A selection of articles from music/pop culture websites on Xu Song.

http://article.pchome.net/content-1391291.html

http://game.china.com/online/tlbb3/news/11105007/20110916/16769361.html

http://music.yule.sohu.com/20110914/n319312652.shtml

http://game.zol.com.cn/249/2499104.html

http://game.donews.com/news/201109/611601.shtm

Njnu-ban-xueshenghao (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regional notability established in the most populous country in the world. I suspect we sound foolish suggesting that our lack of foreknowledge, is a requisite for notability. Fame, perhaps, notability, overreaching. My76Strat (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2011 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Caputo

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

Despite his having been Carl Paladino's campaign manager, and being discussed in one New York Times article, I don't think he meets our notability guidelines, see WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:POLITICIAN tells us that just being an unelected candidate for political office does not guarantee notability, and what we have here is even less: someone who was not even an unelected candidate, but just a campaign manager for one. The one and only source cited as a reference is not substantial enough coverage to establish notability. This article has been created by a single purpose account which seeks to publicise the newly formed and non-notable "Federalist Party" and its members, of which Caputo is one. (The party has little if any connection, apart from the name, with the notable historical party of the same name.) Early versions of the article were highly promotional, consisted almost entirely of copyright infringing text, and plugged his membership of the Federalist Party. Subsequently other editors have removed the unacceptable content, and what is left is a tiny stub on a non-notable subject. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A very interesting person. "Caputo was an election adviser to Boris Yeltsin's administration and lived in Russia from 1994 to 1999", says Washington Post, July 13, 2004; Page A15 [29]. He commented in the article on the murder of his friend, the journalist Paul Klebnikov, see also Congressional Record, p. 17360-61, available here (it is the same article as the one published in Washington Post, but it contains an explanatory introduction). He has worked for George H.W. Bush, Rock the Vote, David Lynch, and the Nicaraguan Contras, you can read in an interesting article published by the New York Observer [30]. “It’s like he’s Forrest Gump,” says one person interviewed by the newspaper. His unusual campaign strategies have been noted by Miami New Times [31], and you can find a detailed information about him in an article published by Buffalo News (available through findarticles.com). I'm sure it is possible to find out more. Is that enough for Wikipedia notability requirements? I read WP:BASIC: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete C'mon -- the requirement is that the sources in some way establish the person's individual notability - not that we search for any sources mentioning his name at all. Find some place which treats him as an individually notable person in a reliable source - until then this is a pretty clear "delete" !vote. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion. Some of the sources - the NYTimes, Miami New Times - provide quite a substantial information exclusively about him, and the information in the other sources linked above is not a simple "passing mention" or just his name. I agree that being a campaign manager is a pretty weak claim of notability. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What??? The New York Times article you linked is an article by Caputo, not about him. Apart from saying "By Michael R. Caputo" at the top of the article, the only mention of him on the page is a one sentence note about his past career. To claim that this "provide[s] quite a substantial information exclusively about him" is so far beyond reasonable as to make it difficult to assume good faith. The only one of the sources you link to which is essentially about Caputo, as opposed to either being about him or else mentioning him a few times, is the one posted on blogs.miaminewtimes.com, and that one really does not constitute very substantial coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JamesBWatson, check the The New York Times link again, and please, try to stay calm. The article is exclusively about Mr. Caputo and it is written by Mr. Javier C. Hernandez, as far as I can see. I don't have the slightest intention to start some crazy theories or defend an article out of vanity. I'm not a newbie and I know quite well what is appropriate to say at AfD and what is not. From I have found, I can imagine a good article about him (of course, written by a competent and responsible editor). However, I don't plan to work on it and the editor who started the page spends time with other things. I'll let it go in peace, but I can say what I think. Moreover, it is just my opinion. Please, respect that and read carefully before commenting about how difficult it is to assume good faith. Thank you. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: I think JamesBWatson meant the Washington Post article, not the NYT one. Yunshui (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did mean the Washington Post article. Thanks to Yunshui for the correction, and apologies to Vejvančický for my mistake. I was actually very surprised that Vejvančický had made such a mistake, as my impression of Vejvančický's editing has always been good. Well, it turns out that I was the one making a mistake. Yes, the The New York Times is genuinely about Michael Caputo, as Vejvančický says, and that does weaken my case for supporting deletion. I still think that there is not enough coverage to establish sufficient notability to keep the article, but my "delete" is a much weaker "delete" than it was. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments above. In my opinion there's enough coverage to build a decent article about this person. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched the Proquest news archive. While Caputo has been quoted frequently in regard to the Paladino campaign, the only article I could find about him was about a minor traffic infraction which turned into a charge of resisting arrest. If Vejvančický could add the information he found to the article maybe I'd change my mind. Will Beback talk 22:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One sentence, and nothing added in a week... I'd say this one should probably go. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of PlayStation 2 games

AfDs for this article:

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

Completely redundant to List of PlayStation 2 games that includes a much better listing of release dates. Further issues include lack of citations, no global view, too long, and requires update; all of which have been identified years ago without any cleanup. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. There's only a need for one article like this, and the other one already does it better. Sergecross73 msg me 15:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant due to List of PlayStation 2 games being a far more comprehensive, up-to-date and organised article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - content fork of List of PlayStation 2 games, which has a sortable table that allows you to sort by release date. —SW— ^speak 23:56, 29 September 2011 (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. Mkativerata (talk) 10:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jawbone (musician)

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has been the subject of multiple significant coverage in reliable sources, and recorded a 13-song session for John Peel's BBC radio show and had two tracks in the annual festive 50 chart.[32], [33], [34]--Michig (talk) 09:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He has recorded at least two albums, and appeared on a foreign BBC radio programme - the John Peel show. The fact he has had decent coverage by a major foreign broadcaster should kick this into touch.-MacRusgail (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2011 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kunihiko Ryo

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Aion has 3.5 million subscribers in Asia", and he did the soundtrack for them. He has done music for a number of notable anime, as well as a live action film. Dream Focus 17:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added 3 interwikis. Moscowconnection (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:JNN is not a valid reason for deletion. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes criterion 10 of WP:MUSICBIO, this reliable source confirms his work on Beyond the Years. The source has been added to the article. His other scores desribed in earlier !votes negates the WP:BLP1E argument. J04n(talk page) 19:14, 28 September 2011 (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 Green computing. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IT Efficiency

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

Article was deprodded for WP:NEO, but the concern still exists. Reading over the citations they are passing mentions, or make no mention at all of the specific term, "IT Efficiency." For instance, the New York Times article linked makes no mention of the term at all. Other articles refer to "Green IT." So it does not appear, "IT Efficiency" warrants an article on its own, and it appears to be WP:NEO. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, neologism. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An essay, and more of that sort of thing: As technology has become more critical to the business function, business has become more demanding, requesting new and better technology to help push the business forward. To provide a high level of service, the IT organization has rolled out new technology at a brisk pace, without the chance to develop policies and procedures beforehand to ensure that technology was being deployed and utilized efficiently. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Merge anything useful (e.g. any good references/etc.) into Green computing. Then make it a redirect to same. Zodon (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. Not even a neologism, since it is just an acronym and a word put together, which is used in two different ways (the "green" sense vs. the business efficiency sense) or not at all in the links. No citations so not really coherent since it is not clear which of concepts it is supposed to be about. W Nowicki (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Smerdis. This is a totally uninformative article based on an extremely convoluted definition. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:21, 30 September 2011 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Hagan

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

Not a notable person, no reliable sources supporting the claims in the article. The initial revision contained a link to a Buffalo News article, however, the article doesn't mention Bill Hagan or William John Hagan (which is a deleted duplicate of this article). The article was nominated for speedy deletion. I replaced the tag with prod template, as there was a claim of notability (He is a founding member of the reestablished Federalist Party). Another administrator retagged the article as {{db-a7}}, but the CSD tag was removed shortly after that by another administrator. I'm bringing it here to resolve the matter. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero references, no indication of wp:notability. Even if claims in the text were accepted, there is nothing indicating such. Notability of "reestablishing" of the federalist party applears low. It's not even mentioned in the Wikipedia article on it, nor is he. North8000 (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even the linked Federalist Party article has got nothing to do with this article, it's about the original partyTigerboy1966 (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable per WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence whatever of notability. This article is part of a campaign by its creator to publicise this new "Federalist Party" and its members. The party has no connection, apart from the name, with the historical party of the same name which is the subject of the article which Vejvančický linked to above. The party does not appear to be notable, so I do not agree that his membership of that party is "a claim of notability", and I think the article could justifiably have been speedily deleted. However, speedy or not, it is a somewhat promotional article on a non-notable subject, and should be deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, clearly WP:SOAP and probably a COI as well. Arbor8 (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per all the above. Kraxler (talk) 00:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Horribly promotional. Google News archives come up empty on him. Having your picture taken with a bunch of pols does not qualify you for an article, and spamming those photos into other articles does not endear you to other editors. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bill Hagan article is now really great. I would like the deletion request removed as this is just a way of hazing new users as we try to learn. Just my thoughts. - Burt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghfkghdkfhsk (talk • contribs) 17:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you go back and read the article as it is now finish or nearly finsihed. Bill Hagan is a major player in Western New York poltics, a noted journalist, several wiki users have been nice enough to help me fix this acticle and I vote against deleteing it. - Thanks You- Burt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghfkghdkfhsk (talk • contribs) 23:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Repaired Vandalism how can one have to many references. Undid revision 452521752 by Ground Zero (talk) signed Burt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghfkghdkfhsk (talk • contribs) 19:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for signing Ghfkghdkfhsk - "Stop the vandalism" - Burt. I'll try to remember this my friend. Thank you. Also didn't know we should post at the bottom.Sorry for the protocol error but I am learning quickly. Remember we you ll first started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghfkghdkfhsk (talk • contribs) 21:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this the administrator in this place. Lets settle this issue my friends. "The Bull Of Bosnia" "Ghfkghdkfhsk" - Burt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghfkghdkfhsk (talk • contribs) 10:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since this AfD started, the author of the article (Ghfkghdkfhsk) has put a considerable amount of effort into trying to make the article look more notable. He/she has added large amounts of detail, but the substantial majority of it is not about Hagan, but rather about other people, entities, or events that Hagan has some sort of connections to. In fact it seems that the article has been converted into a coatrack to promote and publicise the Federalist Party. There are currently apparently 33 references, though some of them are duplicates, so the true number is smaller than that. Two of these references are not online, but they are just high school and university records of his graduations, so they do nothing to establish notability. Another two are mirror copies of the Wikipedia article on other sites, and so are of no value at all as references. Most of the other "references" are web pages which do not mention Hagan, and those that do are either articles by Hagan, not about Hagan or else make no more than one sentence or rarely two sentence mention of him, usually merely quoting him as a spokesman for someone else. One of them says "Collins spokesman Bill Hagan declined to comment", and that is the only mention of him. The whole lot looks to me like what I would expect if someone had (a) done a Google search for "Bill Hagan" and then indiscriminately added links to the resulting pages in an attempt to make the article look as though it is well-sourced when in fact it isn't, and (b) added links in the guise of "references" to pages relating to the Federalist Party as part of the campaign to publicise it. Frankly, if this is the best that the author of the article can find after evidently, as I have said above, putting a considerable amount of effort into trying to demonstrate notability, then I am even more certain than before that the subject is not notable. "The Bill Hagan article is now really great"??? Not to me it isn't. It's a spam coatrack article on a non-notable subject. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For further information see also User_talk:Ghfkghdkfhsk#Sources_in_your_article and User_talk:Ghfkghdkfhsk#Your_additions_to_Bill_Hagan. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Keane

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

PROD removed by IP with no reason given; this is a non-notable player who has never appeared in a fully-professional league, failing WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks WP:RS to satisfy WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG. Happy Editing! — 70.21.12.213 (talk · contribs) _{14:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete - per nom. Subject has not received significant coverage, nor has he played in a fully pro league, meaning he fails boh WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Most League of Ireland and IFA Premiership players do fail both, but there are so many articles. Argyle 4 Life^talk 21:32, 23 September 2011 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Smith (ice hockey)

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

Canadian minor league ice hockey player who fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Has never played at the top level or "Achieved preeminent honours" in the minor league he plays in. The sources I found only mention him in passing and/or are routine coverage. I have no prejudice against redirecting to LaSalle Vipers or recreation as a stand-alone article if he does meet the notability criteria.

As always, if I missed something I am willing to reconsider this nomination. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can be re-created once he reaches NHOCKEY or GNG. Patken4 (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability. Doesn't seem to have even played in the OHL. He seems to have some coverage in the Windsor Star, but that's it. [35] [36] but one non-routine reliable source is hardly adequate to support an article on a 15 year old. Rlendog (talk) 18:23, 26 September 2011 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paislie Reid

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

Declined A7 speedy deletion, as it would appear to pass that criterion - barely. However, it still appears to fail WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total acting experience is four episodes of a tv series. Music is freely downloadable from a compilation album featuring artists from Liverpool England. Bgwhite (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a bad start for someone aged 20, but four TV episodes as an incidental supporting character is a long way off WP:NACTOR. Come back when she has some more credits. We'll consider the Liverpool One Project as and when they become notable, but they're clearly not at the moment. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social India Conference 2011

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

This is a professional conference and fails WP:GNG in part because it is WP:MILL. There are no reviews about it online and it seems to be a typical fundraiser.

Although the lede says it is one of the biggest conferences in India for its field, it seems to be the first time this conference has ever been held and its webpage is rather sparse for such a grand claim. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a program which is started this year and will continue every year for support of the social media topic and the foundation which feeds hungry children. The speakers are prominent from the space of their expertise. Something has to start somewhere. Over time we may have to rephrase the article to be subtle in claims, but not delete it as it refers to a phenomena which is occurring in India. Nurturer (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This conference has not even happened yet, this article is essentially an advertisement for it. Wikipedia is not a press release. Wait until the conference actually happens, and if there is significant coverage of it, then create the article. —SW— ^{spill the beans} 23:58, 29 September 2011 (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 Green Party of Ontario candidates, 2007 Ontario provincial election. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Smith Torrie

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

Non-notable Ontario political candidate. I don't believe that being deputy leader of a minor party by itself warrants inclusion. Based on the state of this article I recommend delete or redirect to a Green party candidate page. Suttungr (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Green Party of Ontario candidates, 2007 Ontario provincial election. Not notable enough either by politics or news sources. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 14:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EncyclopediaUpdaticus: We have met before on another AFD discussion where you also claimed that the subject was "not notable". I am just trying to understand how wikipedians come to this conclusion with so much confidence. I myself am unable to sift thru the 48,500 google results to determine whether she is or not "notable". Would you kindly share with us how you do it? Thanks in advance. Ottawahitech (talk) 04:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:Politician, clause #3. For news coverage there are only 21 results from a single community newspaper. IMO, that is not significant coverage. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 11:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the list you refer to by clicking the link at the top of this page, and contrary to what you say I count seven different sources (Northumberland News, Newsdurhamregion.com, The Trentonian, Peterborough Examiner, Kingston Whig-Standard, Standard Freeholder, Sudbury Star ) including at least one that I know is not a community paper, but a rather major news source in the area? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, four of those are major news sources, not just one... Bearcat (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, while I don't personally know very much about her background beyond what's already in the article, I think it's very possible that the article could be significantly expanded to surpass WP:GNG by going into a lot more depth about her involvement in environmental activism. Redirect for now, but without prejudice against future recreation if somebody is willing to put in the time and effort to WP:HEY it up. Bearcat (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Green Party of Ontario candidates, 2007 Ontario provincial election. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. —SW— ^express 23:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is a lot of faulty logic on the "keep" side, such as the confusion between "not true for all" versus "false for all" and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. However, the "delete" side has failed to show conclusively how the sources regarding his involvement with the Atheist Bus Campaign are insufficient. No prejudice against a renomination that actually focuses on WP:GNG. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Trottier

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

Non-notable candidate in Ontario election. Recommend delete or redirect to Green party, 2011 election candidate page. Suttungr (talk) 13:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Article fails to meet the notability guidelines for politicians. He appears to have received a bit of coverage over his involvement with the creation of the Freethought Association of Canada, however the mentions are brief, and he is not the main subject of the coverage. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 13:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article provides 36 references and I admit I only looked at a couple. However, i distinctly remember looking at a video produced by the CBC in which Mr. Trottier was interviewed at length and was definitely the subject of the coverage. Ottawahitech (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I made the article initially, so I figured that I should chime in. I agree that he is not notable for the politician category. I made it because he's a bit of a national spokesperson for atheism in Canada. I think that right now its debatable whether he is notable enough for that. He has gotten some media exposure for that role, but it was as one of the organizers and spokespersons for the Atheist Bus Campaign in Canada that he had the most coverage. They seem to be planning yet another campaign as well, which he will again be the spokesperson. Perhaps we should expand the sections that are most relevant and notable for an encyclopedic article and reduce the sections that are not? Or perhaps the Atheist Bus Campaign article covers everything that is needed to be said about him? --Havermayer (talk) 14:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have never heard of this candidate until today, but after reviewing some of the references provided by the article I cannot see why Justin Trottier cannot have a page on Wikipedia. The interview with CBC shows him to be a sensible and articulate candidate, who even though may not get elected due to his age and the party he is running for, can bring some good discussion of issues to the table. For example the discussion about Catholic school funding is way overdue. This is a channce for Wikipedia to play a role in bringing about enlightenment, when others are to afraid to speak up. Ottawahitech (talk) 01:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are valid reasons. Please review Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (we're not a means for promotion, for instance) and Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Whether or not a person or subject is good, sensible, articulate, and so forth is immaterial. The function of articles for deletion is to assess notability. Neutrality^talk 07:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

in answer to neutrality: I still don't understand why Justin Trottier is considered not notable: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Ottawahitech (talk) 09:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Candidacy in an election is not intrinsically a notable criteria. I've seen too many articles that pop up just before an election just to give someone a platform to air their election propaganda. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that anyone who runs for elections is automatically not notable? - if not, why is Justin Trottier not notable Ottawahitech (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am saying that candidacy in an election does not automatically confer notability. If there are other reasons to keep the article then maybe the article is OK. But based on this criterion, the article fails the notability test. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please be specific, which criterion are you referring to? I am trying to understand what you are saying. Ottawahitech (talk) 03:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable candidate. Most of the article is self-promotion for this guy's soapbox on atheism. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do not specify why this candidate is not notable. If the article is not neutral that is a different issue, isn't it? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:Politician, clause #3. For news coverage there are 79 results from a various sources. Most of these mentions are about his participation in the atheism events, not necessarily as a key organizer. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, he isn't notable as a politician. The debate would be whether he would be notable as an atheist spokesperson for various organizations. --Havermayer (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak !vote for redirect per nom. Don't really see how he's notable. As for the comment above that "This is a channce for Wikipedia to play a role in bringing about enlightenment, when others are to afraid to speak up", I'd point Ottowahitech to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are addressing my comment here, let me reply: are you suggesting that referencing discussion about Catholic school funding by taxpayers is the same as, say, exposing a child molester? Do you not think that such a topic belongs on Wikipedia Ottawahitech (talk) 13:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to candidate page. It's as if this article is trying too hard to be one that makes it kind of weird to read, if you know what I mean. Something along the lines of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Atrian (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which "candidate page" do you believe this article should re-direct to? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Green Party of Ontario candidates, 2011 Ontario provincial election. Atrian (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His notoriety mostly stems from being a spokesperson for the Canadian Atheist bus campaign. I guess it should link to that page if it has to redirect anywhere. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He gets coverage for his Atheist activities, not just the "no god" bus thing. [37] The article includes mentions of the television and radio shows that he is on, talking about his beliefs and all. Dream Focus 20:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LyciaBI

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

Not notable software, barely mentioned anywhere except the company website - see the search links above. Doesn't meet WP:N (or WP:NSOFT) criteria for inclusion in encyclopedia. ElComandanteChe (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ElComandanteChe (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note the related deletion discussions:

--ElComandanteChe (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources WP:RS to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Googling turns up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unambiguous advertising that leaves you clueless about what exactly this does: a business intelligence tool... fully integrates with LyciaStudio providing business intelligence functionality... based on two main conceptual models - analytical model and behavioral model - and provides all necessary administrative tools and cross-platform services.... the analytical model is the core of LyciaBI Server and covers the whole range of analytical needs, providing the following solutions for each analytical area. Referenced only to a product list. Note related AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lycia (software) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LyciaStudio. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's an ad. "Look Boss, I made a Wikipedia article!"Tigerboy1966 (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lycia (software)

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

Not notable commercial software, barely mentioned anywhere except the company website. The search of Google books, news and scholar for the combination of "Lycia" and "4GL" (Lycia a tool for 4GL programmers) returns nothing meaningful. Doesn't meet WP:N (or WP:NSOFT) criteria for inclusion in encyclopedia. ElComandanteChe (talk) 12:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ElComandanteChe (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note the related deletion discussions:

--ElComandanteChe (talk) 13:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources WP:RS to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. I also Googled and found nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 14:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unambiguous advertising and about computers: a complete 4GL development environment.... employs the 'AAA Concept'... . It is as simple, readable and easy-to-learn as possible, while still being a high-level-syntax language designed for modern busines applications.... offers easy and on-demand access to networks sharing configurable computing resources that can be swiftly provided and distributed with minimal administration effort. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another ad masquerading none too convincingly as an article.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads as Advertisement; only website is company's own, not notable.Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2011 (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) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 21:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenSource

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

Unambiguous advertisement:

a global software company in the Enterprise Data Management industry...
EDM allows its clients to collect, standardize, consolidate, and manage information about their securities and products, customers, transactions, and other operations, to better manage the distribution of critical data to business applications...
Goldensource develops solutions that create a single, high-quality source and integrated platform of trusted data, to improve information quality and efficiency throughout an enterprise. It creates, validates, and publishes a trusted Golden Copy in real time and in multiple formats. Its data management solutions make it easy to access standard content from leading data vendors. It also has a unique ability to link product and entity information with real time transactions and positions, leveraging operational control into financial control.

Article is about a global software company in the Enterprise Data Management industry. Prod contested without any improvement to the promotionally non-neutral text. Referenced to press releases or PR-based stories on software industry PR aggregators. A global software company in the Enterprise Data Management industry is the sort of business that's just not going to be notable. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 12:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 12:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

Comment. Could you perhaps clarify what in the article you feel is an "unambiguous advertisement", as opposed to an appropriate description? Nearly all of what you quote above at length seems to be the sort of dryly factual descriptive language one would expect to see in an article on any notable global software company. Two exceptions are the use of the phrases "high quality" and "unique", but if appropriate (i.e., if not supported by refs) those phrases could be deleted -- and that seems the sort of thing we generally address with normal editing, rather than article deletion. The article also (now) contains a number of non-press-release articles, that appear to be from industry magazines independent of the company. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just from the quoted portions, the article contains unreferenced claims of "global" impact. It's full of unspecific glittering generalities: "high quality" sources, "integrated" platforms, "trusted", "critical" data and "trusted Golden Copy" (huh???). It "makes it easy" to access "content" from "leading" data vendors. "(U)nique ability to link product and entity information with real time transactions and positions, leveraging operational control into financial control" - as far as I can tell, this means absolutely nothing, but it uses leverage as a verb. (Only non-notable businesses ever use leverage as a verb.) It refers to its products, whatever they are, as "solutions", and that's an automatic neutrality violation. It's all about vaguely suggesting how its products or services --- and the article is vague on what's actually for sale here, too --- will make your business run better, while avoiding any specifics.

For what it's worth, software trade websites and magazines are usually media with limited readerships and circulations, which makes them not particularly helpful to establish notability. This goes double when you're dealing with IT industries, which, let's face it, are where the spam comes from. But notability, while problematic here, is not the biggest problem with this text. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your basis for nomination is "Unambiguous Advertisement". Clicking through to see what that means, I see that it relates to "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." I don't see, even by your description, how it falls within the ambit of that. To the extent that there is any puffery -- language not supported by RSs -- we address it by normal editing, rather than by deleting the article. As to your example, some of the phrases you point to seem to be normal, dry, descriptive editing. I don't even see the phrase "high quality" in the article -- which you cite as part of your basis for deletion. And I am having trouble understanding why you feel it is "unambiguous advertisement" to use the phrase "integrated platform" -- that is dryly factual. Same with "critical data" -- that refers to the company's product being used for data that the company deems critical -- that is dryly factual as well, and not promotional in any way. Same with "trusted" and "golden copy" -- those are bland industry phrases, reflecting the company's trust in its data (not the trustworthiness of company), and the fact that the company relies on the copy.

If you would like to understand more about what the word "golden copy" means, you can easily find many mentions of it. Such as this one. If you are not familiar with a term, you might consider augmenting the article to better explain what the phrase means. But that is not a reason to delete an article. Some of your other comments raise questions in my mind as well, but that is my reaction to your initial comments -- the phrases you point to either: a) are not in the article, b) are descriptive and not promotional; or c) if any are unduly promotional without RS support, they should be addressed by normal editing, rather than by deleting the article.

I see that you just used a similar argument in an effort to delete a similar company on the basis of what you believed to be unambiguous advertising here. The result was keep, with editors who had a different view than you did pointing out that AfD is not for cleanup. I think that same thinking holds here, and it might be worthwhile taking to heart what the consensus community reaction was to your view at that AFD. Similarly, casting aspersions on articles used as references because you tend to believe that they are "PR-based", an aspersion that you have not support with any evidence, strikes me as OR and a non-verifiable accusation. I see that the same observation was made to you by another editor at an ongoing AFD [38], where you took a similar position.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will level with you. You seem to be an established editor with a solid body of work. You ought to understand why using the word "solution" to refer to a product or service for sale is an obvious breach of the neutrality policy. Similarly, the word leverage used in the way this article uses it is a hallmark of text that does not read like an encyclopedia article. It's a gross abuse of the English language in any case; in finance, the word leverage originally means speculating with borrowed money, never a good idea. I think it got picked up by spammers because it sounded more dynamic.

To me, it doesn't read like an encyclopedia article; which is why I say that even if this business might be notable, the text we have now does not belong in an encyclopedia. I see this entire article as shot through with non-neutral language that paints a rosy picture about how this business's products, whatever they are, can help you make money fast on the Internet. But I'm not getting a clear picture of what its employees spend their time doing or what it sells or makes. And without that kind of clarity, it can't be fixed by editing. If it needs translation from jargon to English, it can't be fixed by editing. And when that jargon also sounds like sales patter, it reads like spam.

I've also never made it a secret that I think that IT businesses tend to be short lived and IT technologies tend to be temporary. IT businesses need to show fairly significant effects on history, technology, or culture to have articles, and independent sources need to confirm not only that they exist, or that they have products for sale, but that they are that significant, of the kind that will be remembered in histories of their field. I do not see this article making any such case for significance. Wikipedia is not a software business directory. I will also cheerfully confess that I believe that most IT businesses are not the sorts of subjects that ought to get encyclopedia articles. I suspect many of them are paid insertions for the purpose of search engine manipulation. Make of that what you will. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 06:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in this article that remotely suggests that its business products "help you make money fast on the Internet". It has nothing to do with the internet at all. Or with "making money fast". It is clearly, as it indicates, a company that provides products to financial institutions. To help them better manage their data. Nor is there any reason to view this quarter-century company as "short-lived". Or to suggest that this company with offices in four countries needs to (did you just make this up?) "show fairly significant effects on history, technology, or culture ... [and be] the kind that will be remembered in histories of their field." I'm troubled that you -- a sysop -- seem to making up criteria, and passing them off as though they are wikipedia's notability criteria.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per my above queries/comments, and nom's responses. I can't add much to what I've said before. Except to add that I don't think we should delete an article on the basis that the word leverage is used. As can be readily apprehended by reading the click-through definition, it is a perfectly appropriate word to use, and I fail to see the evil in it that nom believes is manifest. In addition, I note that there is coverage not only as reflected in the article and in searches of the company by its current name, but also in searches under its former name here in gbooks, here in gnews, and here in ghits; in aggregate, I see these as well as those refs reflected in the article as being sufficient to indicate that this 27-year-old, 300-person company with offices in four countries around the world meets GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Epeefleche (talk) 07:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you aren't familiar with the computer terminology of "trusted data" please check the books that discuss it. [39] You can also look through the snippets of "golden copy" and read a nice definition of it on the first page of Google book results. [40] We should certainly have a Wikipedia article defining all these common computer terms of course. Existing reliable sources referenced in the article meet WP:GNG. You can't delete something simply because you don't like it. Dream Focus 10:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I applaud the nominator for fighting the use of advertising on Wikipedia, I must disagree with his statement that "a global software company in the Enterprise Data Management industry is the sort of business that's just not going to be notable". Google News and Books are turning up what seems to be significant coverage, even for a software company. Issues with promotional language can be cleaned up fairly easily, I'll have a try at it shortly. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - Whatever the sourcing deficiencies here, an "unambiguous advertisement" this is not. Flawed nomination. Carrite (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per editor Epeefleche. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LyciaStudio

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

Not notable software, barely mentioned anywhere except the company website - see the search links above. Doesn't meet WP:N (or WP:NSOFT) criteria for inclusion in encyclopedia. ElComandanteChe (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ElComandanteChe (talk) 12:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note the related deletion discussions:

--ElComandanteChe (talk) 13:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources WP:RS to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Googling turns up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unambiguous advertisement for a computer programming tool: ...designed to make 4GL development work more productive... While in comprises such default Eclipse perspectives as the Debug perspective and Resource Management perspective, it also includes the 4GL Perspective. (?????) The CVS client provides a special perspective with views suitable for working with repositories... Well, isn't that special? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:06, 23 September 2011 (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. There is sufficient evidence that this community does exist. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fleener, Indiana

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

Nonexistent locality: the article is based on the GNIS, which here has made an error. Street View will show you that no community exists at these coordinates (39°16′57″N 86°24′45″W / 39.28250°N 86.41250°W / 39.28250; -86.41250) presently, and multiple Monroe County histories state that the only community ever founded in Benton Township is the Unionville/New Unionville area. Nyttend (talk) 12:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Google Maps shows a place called Fleener at a junction of two roads, by Lake Lemon northeast of Bloomington, Indiana.[41][42] Not listed on the Indiana Dept. of Transportation road map for 2010. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment— it's not unheard of in print either, although it approaches being unheard of. here's a mention in a piece of fiction, which i hardly claim is a reliable source for the existence of a place, but it's not nothing. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No rail line has ever gone through the area immediately north of Lake Lemon: the current line, which goes through Unionville (per your Findagrave, formerly Fleenersburgh), is the only one that's ever run through the area. Nyttend (talk) 02:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep—i have to go with keeping this one. if google maps says it exists, and it's mentioned in a number of google hits, it's almost certainly real, and if it's real it should have an article. probably what the histories mean is that unionville is the only community ever incorporated in benton township, but the world is full of unincorporated places with names. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC) p.s.—i'm restoring my keep here because of sources discovered by TheCatalyst31; quite impressive research. Carlossuarez46's comments are quite insightful. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unionville and New Unionville have never been incorporated: the histories specifically say that area was the only community of any sort founded in the township. Nyttend (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ok—but nevertheless, there is this too. perhaps a redirect is in order? it just seems to me that 'tis becoming clear that such a place exists or existed. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read the comment below: you misunderstood a source. Nyttend (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A mention in a fictional work does not prove that it is or was ever an inhabited place. Google maps is not a reliable source, since they do not have an established reputation for fact checking and for correcting errors, their source for place names is unknown and unverifiable, and they do not have a named editorial board. I have sent them documentation of errors and they have neither replied nor corrected the errors. Histories of the county note no such community. Perhaps someone put it in GNIS as a joke, or it was just an error. Edison (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A search for its variant name "Fleenersburgh" gets multiple hits including the Indiana Gazetteer. This place apparently did exist. • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And still does: see the Findagrave link given below and please read the entire entry. Nyttend (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment—here is the find-a-grave entry for the guy who founded the place. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the entry thoroughly, you will observe that the name "Fleenersburgh" was later changed to "Unionville". Nyttend (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you're right that i misunderstood that at first, but i did later come to understand it, which is why, in my reply above, i suggested a redirect (assuming fleener = fleenersburgh = fleenersburg. i'm sorry that i was vague. anyway, at this point i'm not sure, so i'm withdrawing my keep for now. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC) p.s.—note unstruck keep above — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Findagrave" is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. The will cited in the Fiundagrave do4s not verify that the guy who died in Missouri in 1872 earlier founded a town of "Fleener" or "Fleenersburgh" in Indiana. Findagrave lacks editorial supervision and is equivalent to a blog or a site where people post their supposed genealogies. If a reliable source can be produced that part of unincorporated "Unionville" was once called informally "Fleenersburgh" then that could be summarized as one sentence in Unionville, Indiana. A redirect would be suitable. But the claimed renaming is dubious, since the two hamlets are not in the same place, per the coordinates given in the two articles. Fails verifiability. Street view shows nothing in the claimed location of "Fleener" but an overgrown field. No remains of streets or a town. ~~Smacks of a hoax.~~ Edison (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

my friend, this country is full of places that are nothing more than a crossroads and a couple of farms and they got names for their places too. sometimes stuff even happens there. look at Money, Mississippi on google maps if you don't believe me. it's just not possible to tell whether or not a place exists by looking at a satellite photo of it. anyway, i'm not so convinced that findagrave is not "considered reliable" as there are plenty of circles here where it is. also, ~~i already withdrew my keep~~, so i don't know what else you're trying to convince me of. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The street view and aerial view prove that there is no hamlet there now. It is certainly possible to tell if a hamlet exists now when the aerial view shows nothing at all but a plowed field. Absent some sort of reliable source that there was ever a hamlet or town or community there, the article should be deleted. Anyone can claim just about anything anything at Findagrave, and it is not considered a reliable source in Wikipedia. Some websites and an 1840's gazetteer have hints that Mr Fleener thought of starting a town there in the 1830's or 1840's but no reliable source has been presented that it had streets, buildings, or population. A sentence in the Unionville article is more than sufficient homage to the failed hopes of Mr. Fleener. Edison (talk) 03:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hence my opinion, expressed above fairly clearly, that perhaps a redirect is in order. i'm so glad we agree!— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A Fleener post office was mentioned in this publication in 1901, which was after Unionville had been established. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the existence of a Fleener post office after the name Unionville was in use would suggest that Fleener and Unionville are not the same community, meaning a redirect wouldn't make sense. ~~I would !vote to keep the community, except I can't find any other record of it, which is unusual for settlements~~ (Struck per my !vote.). TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the reference I mentioned above and the GNIS reference, I also found this 1895 map, which includes Fleener. With three references, it can safely be said that this community both existed and is separate from Unionville. This map would also explain why Fleener isn't in any history of Benton Township, since it's actually in Marion Township. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 05:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized that Marion Township is no longer a township, though my last point is probably true nonetheless. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 05:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per Midway, Ohio and many other communities, post offices and their communities don't always have the same names. Moreover, if you check the way that rural areas in the USA developed, you'll observe that post offices were often established in the house of a person who happened to live in the middle of an area with no communities, simply because that person had a vaguely central location. Post office often doesn't indicate community. If you've ever worked with the types of local histories that I mentioned in the intro (comprehensive; based on local information and published by national companies with strong reputations), you'd know that they didn't omit entire communities, so you'd know that the absence of a community name from such a history means that none had been established. You've still not produced any evidence of a populated place with the name of Fleener that existed in this area at any time in recorded history. Nyttend (talk) 05:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it clearly existed (as attested by 3 sources now), and whether the townships have changed or its status has now changed to defunct are immaterial to its being kept. FWIW, I think that all the various comments based on satellite photos and street views are clearly within the ambit of Original Research and comments based upon such shaky ground have little weight. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 21:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ramnapping Trophy

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

Non-notable college football trophy. The rivalry does not appear to be notable either. There are no third party sources to show notability. GrapedApe (talk) 12:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is now cited, and it is an integral part of UConn history. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's an amusing and informative little article. I just added another ref to illustrate the history.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Per above.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2011 (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. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of data. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Table of lunar phases

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

Wikipedia is WP:NOTADIRECTORY of moon phases, that's what the Farmer's Almanac and a calendar are for CTJF83 11:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - move content to each years' articles. ᛭ LokiClock (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Totally lacking WP:RS to meet WP:GNG … surprising that it has been around for so long. Happy Editing! — 70.21.12.213 (talk · contribs) _{15:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)}[reply]
Delete It makes no sense on its own and personally I feel it falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Also NASA does this so much better why not put a link to their site NASA Moon Phases, Six Millennium Catalogue Nshimbi (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of context explaining the (quite meaningful) data. Simple regurgitation of data available elsewhere. I agree with Nshimbi that the Parent Article should link to the mentioned site instead if WP hosting a lower quality mirror of the same info. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 16:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the mentioned link to the Parent Article, so (overall) no Information will be lost. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 16:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve: Looks like I created the article [18:29, 25 June 2006 Tomruen (talk | contribs) (37,122 bytes) (create table article from moved content from lunar phase)]. Agreed [43] is better. The only reason I might see for this on wikipedia, is if it wiki-linked eclipse event (which were not available in 2006), but are now! SockPuppetForTomruen (talk) 18:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tomruen - there is potential for improvement here. If we had a "WikiData" project outside Wikipedia, then this might arguably fit there better than here. But Wikipedia IS AN ALMANAC, not just a conventional encyclopedia, and this is almanac-worthy material. TheGrappler (talk) 01:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'potential for improvement'? I hope that means calculating the times independently of the NASA reference, adding some actual prose & mentioning/explaining the Cite'able formula used in the calculation; because it is getting closer and closer to a copyright violation every time someone copypastes from NASA. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 02:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a legitimate list/table. Biophys (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. This is not an article, it's a directory entry. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is nothing more than a time table that can be expanded infinitely (for past and future dates), fails WP:NOTADIRECTORY and WP:NOT#STATS. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:32, 30 September 2011 (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. Siliconera is clearly reliable, and as Imgaril points out, it is standard practice to have a legal disclaimer. The situation on the blogs is less clear, but it should be noted that blogs are not inherently unreliable. Overall there is sufficient coverage to establish notability. Regarding the copyright issues, editors may later decide to remove possibly infringing portions, but that does not affect the notability of the subject. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario War

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has only two sources and fails WP:GNG. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 02:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A completely non-notable freeware game. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 02:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nintendude64. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They're all download links and fan art. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep I found a long review at About.com, news at Siliconera, and an review/analysis at MakeUseOf. --Odie5533 (talk) 04:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep About.com lets anyone load things up I believe, so that doesn't count. Siliconera is used in 453 articles. Seems like a reliable source. Makeuseof seems notable as well. Good work Odie5533, you saved the day. Dream Focus 05:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's also coverage at Kotaku. --Teancum (talk) 10:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As ever, DreamFocus makes a convincing case. Good finds with the sources Teancum and Odie5533! FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Siliconera self declares as unreliable. Makeuseof and Kotaku are blog sites, and we use such sites with care - WP:BLOGS. I see that there is evidence that this game exists, though am not reassured by the quality of the coverage that the game has achieved enough notability to require an entry in Wikipedia. It is not listed at Allgame or Gamerankings. Why is this barely mentioned game considered notable? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable because it has received significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Both Kotaku and Siliconera are used in featured articles here on Wikipedia:

Siliconera was defended in FAC for Final Fantasy XIII, 2011 and has been referenced by IGN, 1UP.com, 1UP.com, 1UP.com, Kotaku, ShackNews, ShackNews, EuroGamer, ArsTechnica, EuroGamer, EuroGamer, EuroGamer, EuroGamer.
Kotaku is used in over 1,600 articles on Wikipedia including many featured articles such as Portal (video game), Halo 3: ODST, Okami, BioShock, and Shadow of the Colossus.

I don't consider allgame or gamerankings important indicators of notability, and only allgame can be used to support notability anyways. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment the issue "wp does not allow blogs" is a common error - wikipedia does not allow self-published sources as reliable - such sources are commonly presented as blogs. (WP:BLOGS is redirect to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources) - there are no rules or guidelines that penalise a blog format as a reliable source. Kotaku is a professional game site which can be displayed in blog format, it is not self published. You can say it inherits design and style decisions from blogs. You see that the site has a full staff complement here http://kotaku.com/about/ Imgaril (talk) 12:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification. My comment above is that we use blogs with care. The wording is: "open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources." When looking for notability as opposed to simply verifiability, the more reliable and respectable the site appears, the more confident I feel. As this game does not appear to be covered or mentioned in the major game listing sites, and has no reviews in more orthodox publications, then I have little confidence in its notability. As the sites that are used in this article mix open blogging with some editorial control does not help matters. As there is such doubt, I am neither supporting nor opposing - merely making an observation that the sources raise questions, and I would prefer more significant evidence of notability. I hope that helps. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the Kotaku piece is John Brownlee - a well known video game blogger. That is an interesting piece of information. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As always, the ARS folk just tally up whatever's out there without actually evaluating if the sources are reliable or not. Blogs do not establish notability. One Kotaku entry does not meet the notability threshold. One also has to consider that the game itself is an obvious copyright infringement, and we do have policies that address linking to such information. Tarc (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith and stop attacking the ARS constantly please. Makeuseof is a reliable site, and the article is written by a guy whose name is listed at the bottom section under "MakeUseOf Staff Authors". And I originally said delete [44] do to copyright violations, but as someone pointed out that's all fan made art work. Also the game isn't really like any Mario Brothers, other than some similarities which you find in other platform games as well. If Nintendo had a problem with it, they'd sue, as they always do for such things. If they didn't copyright yellow boxes with a question mark on them, or other aspects used there as registered trademarks, then nothing illegal has been done. Dream Focus 21:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See comment above. If you have a problem with the content of the article, please bring it up on the talk page. Also, to Dream Focus, all the colors in your signatures makes it hard to know where your comment ends. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-ish I believe Siliconera's attempt to protect itself from lawsuits does not make it unreliable. Work by a staff writer on a site with editors and the like is also likely reliable. The "ish" part is that I'm really unclear on the copyright issue here. I'd think the product has to be infringing. I don't think being a (potential) copyright violation should stop us from covering an otherwise notable topic, but I honestly don't know if any policy or guideline adresses the issue. Hobit (talk) 03:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Siliconera Claiming that a legal disclaimer is equivalent to a statement of unreliability is complete nonsense and should be ignored. All sites do this IGN Eurogamer Game Informer all make essentially identical disclaimers that they make no guarantee of accuracy of information. It's a standard disclaimer. I see no reason why Siliconera should not be taken as a reliable source just as IGN, Gamespot etc are. Imgaril (talk) 12:22, 25 September 2011 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jiaa Manek

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

Delete as the person doesn't satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER, which requires "significant major roles". She just has her TV debut role, a major role in the serial Saathiya (TV series). Seems Too Soon. PROD was contested by anonymous IP without a reason. May also be redirected to Saathiya (TV series). Muhandes (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete definitely fails WP:ENT. LibStar (talk) 11:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. If she had the lead role in a North American tv series, this would never be an AfD. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your argument. WP:ENT requires significant roles in multiple notable series. She does not meet that requirement, simple as that. What does the series being from India have anything to do with it? This would have been exactly the same for an actor in an American, Brazilian or Israeli series. --Muhandes (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 19:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Substantial coverage in a reliable source - The Times of India, and has significant coverage in other Indian publications. From the available evidence she appears to be very notable in India. A WP:Before search for sources is useful before bringing articles to AfD. And it's always worth bearing WP:WORLDVIEW in mind when dealing with non-Western topics. This article adequately meets our basic inclusion criteria - no need to go to additional guidelines. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who added that source to the article, so obviously I was aware of it. The search I did before nominating yielded mostly fansites, with little significant reliable coverage. I did find some, which I added to the article as sources, but I thought it was not enough to satisfy WP:GNG. I must have missed some of it, can you please list those sources that address the subject directly in detail? --Muhandes (talk) 11:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 11:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added more references (in the form of external links). I think there's a possibility to compile a decent article based on reliable sources. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the notion of significant coverage is not clear. The sources you added were 1. A report of her going to Switzerland for shooting. 2. a source already in the article. 3. A report of her receiving a gift from four gift fans. I noticed all of these before making this nomination, and not only did I think they are even close to satisfying the first requirement of WP:GNG "address the subject directly in detail", I could not find anything to do with them in the article. Both you and SilkTork are assuming from some reason that I just nominated without doing any research at all. this is how the article looked before I started editing. this is how it looked after I looked for sources and added all I found. I believe one needs much more significant cover than that for WP:GNG or any beginning actor on their first role will have an article. (also, according to WP:ELNO #1, if you think these source can be used in the article, they should probably not be added as external links) --Muhandes (talk) 13:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muhandes, her appearances in TV and film have been noted by important Indian media, she has performed in notable TV shows and most importantly, the information is easily verifiable by reliable sources. Of course, she isn't as famous as Elisabeth Taylor, but I think our information is useful for our readers, especially for those seeking a comprehensive and detailed coverage of Indian film. It is just my opinion. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying "her appearances in TV and film" and "she has performed in notable TV shows", well that's the entire point - she hasn't. She performed in one notable TV show and had one minor role in a film. That's it - that's her entire one year career. I don't think we need every actor to be as notable as Elisabeth Taylor, with 61 year of career, but an article after one year of career is too soon. And we do not have detailed coverage on her in media, unless I missed it. We have one interview she gave to Times of India and one interview by her own network, Star Plus, which probably counts as a primary source. All the rest is random mentions in media, not detailed coverage. --Muhandes (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an open discussion, various people have various opinions and in my opinion we should keep the article. Her notable TV role attracted the attention of The Times of India, which is a well known newspaper in that country. The article tells something about local pop culture and I can imagine a decent page about this actress. You already did a good job on this article. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, it seems that she is a recipient of the STAR Parivaar Award (a "family award" of the Star Plus network), see this article, published by Bihar Times. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am far from being an expert, but from reading the article it seems like it is the character who receives the award, not the actress (maybe a bit odd, but WP:WORLDVIEW). I'll add that to the article anyway. --Muhandes (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oy, it looks that you are right. However, a character can not take up a prize, as it is a somewhat immaterial entity :D I think that characters who receive the STAR Parivaar Awards are represented by the actors. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:11, 25 September 2011 (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 red carded. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey and England football rivalry

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

From an internet search this rivalry doesn't seem to get any mention whatsoever in any English language sources. Declined PROD, with the decliner claiming that the rivalry exists only (if thats possible) in Turkey. Though no references to back it up. Ravendrop 10:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can find reliable sources - It's strange, there was a fair bit of talk about this when an English fan was stabbed, but my google foo has failed me in finding any sources [45] [46]. FYI to the nom, the England vs Germany football rivalry is similarly largely felt by the English, Germans usually see the Dutch as their main rivals. --Deadly∀ssassin 11:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Opinions needs to be shown in reliable sources in order to have any standing in an encyclopaedia. The Old Firm is a good example. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all the article tells us is that the two teams have played each other a few times. That does not consitute a rivalry -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is not a rivalry full stop, let alone a notable one. Giant Snowman 18:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I remember there being a short-lived rivalry when Turkey and England were in the same qualifying group for Euro 2004, and my memory is confirmed by press reports from the UK[47][48] and around the world.[49][50][51]. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A couple of minutes searching finds a cast-iron reliable source showing that coverage of that rivalry goes beyond contemporaneous news coverage, these books confirm ~~the most offensive chant~~ one of the offensive chants associated with this rivalry (including that it originated before the Euro 2004 campaign, as two of the books were published in 2001 and 2002) and this book credits this rivalry with prompting campaigns against racism in English football, such as Kick It Out. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That really belongs in Racism in association football. I don't think you can count one chant that came to a head around 2003 as a football rivalry. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I provided other sources that are not about that one chant. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The only other thing I could see was tighter than average security around two England/Turkey matches in the same year following incidents of racism and hooliganism. Unfortunately, neither racism nor hooliganism are that unusual in football. There would be a case for an article if there was either sources out there that unambigously write about the rivalry between two football teams, or a series of events that show, beyond reasonable doubt, that a specific rivalry exists, but this is neither. All this really shows is evidence of generic rivalry with whoever's competing with you for the automatic qualification spot this year. Some people might argue that those ugly events was evidence of something deeper, but we don't write articles on the basis of disputable observations of what's significant about an event.
      - What is ambiguous about this source that I linked above? It was published in 2007 and says, "since the beginning of the twenty-first century a new source of antagonism has been added to the equation - the growth of anti-Turkish sentiment in English football." That is not the description of any "generic rivalry with whoever's competing with you for the automatic qualification spot", but of a specific phenomenon that has been noted in a book from an academic publisher. The other sources that I linked support that contention. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It takes more than one paragraph in a book to count as substantial coverage in reliable sources. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, I know. That's why I linked many other sources above. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no rivalry here. The overall standings section says it all. Argyle 4 Life^talk 10:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If England has rivalries with any other football nations, they are Germany, Argentina and Scotland. I don't know about in Turkey, but no one in the UK sees Turkey as a rival for England. – Pee Jay 17:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No deletion reason given. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 21:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Television (Bangladesh)

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

ansuman (talk) 08:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Does the nominator have a rationale for deletion? A cursory Google search gets multiple RS mentions of this TV channel. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. No reason for deletion has been stated. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2011 (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 Chhatari. Clearly a mistake as an article already exists on the same topic. We don't carry two articles on the same subject. Redirecting Chhattari State to Chhatari. Discussions on the appropriate name should be carried out at Wikipedia:Requested moves SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chhattari State

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

The Chhatari was never a princely state. The google search gives zero [52] result. It was an estate or jagir. There already exists a page called Chhatari, in which already the contents have been added by me . The page title is wrong. It should be deleted immediatly.Jethwarp (talk) 06:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Jethwarp (talk) 06:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am far from being an authority on the subject, so please explain. My meager understanding is that Nawab is a title of a ruler of a princely state, the Muslim equivalent to Maharaja. A ruler of a jagir is usually a jagirdar, not a Nawab. I see sources for the existence of Mahmud Ali Khan, Nawab of Chhatari, ([53], [54]), would that not mean Chhatari was a princely state? I do agree that even if this is true, the material can just as well be merged into Chhatari with redirects from Nawab of Chhatari, Chhatari State and Chhatari (princely state) (see for example the same thing with Sachin, Gujarat and redirects from Nawab of Sachin, Sachin State and Sachin (princely state)). --Muhandes (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please see Nawab#Personal_Nawabs, it clearly mentions that : The title of Nawab was also awarded as a personal distinction by the paramount power, similarl to a British peerage, to persons and families who never ruled a princely state. Silmilarly there were many Estate Holders, who styled themselves as Raja like Raj Darbhanga and Ramgarh Raj, who were categorised as Zamindars. Also as regards to Sachin, Gujarat there are enough ref to prove it was a Princely State [55] but same is not case with Chhatari [56]. The Nawab of Chhatari is a personal title and article on his name is Muhammad Ahmad Said Khan Chhatari is here. Admins should see that since Wiki is an encyclopaedia, it should not have wrong Article name - giving mis-conception that it was a Princely State.Jethwarp (talk) 06:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your word for it. --Muhandes (talk) 09:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I would request admins that the creator of page has already added the details available in this article also to page Chhatari, so it would be proper that the page is deleted as sometimes admins prefer to redirect page for attribution purpose. Jethwarp (talk) 03:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - sorry, but since content was merged, here, whatever happens to this page it cannot be out-rightly deleted for the attribution reason that you alluded to. A straight deletion would breach our GFDL licence. If the closing admin considers that a redirect is inappropriate then the alternative method would be to move this page to a sub-page of Talk:Chhatari, provide a link from there and delete the resulting redirect. That preserves attribution without a potentially misleading redirect. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2011 (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 06:51, 23 September 2011 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Yellow Tape

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

It is a very small article without much information. The tape is out-of-print and near-impossible to find in modern times. All information has been moved to Barenaked Ladies demo tapes. ChineseLamps (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just last month this article was nominated for AfD, discussed, notability established, and withdrawn. Please see the discussion. --Juventas (talk) 03:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except this time there is actually more reason for it to be deleted. ChineseLamps (talk) 04:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More reason? The article didn't get smaller. It's has been out-of-print for several years. I just don't see what changed since last month. --Juventas (talk) 04:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ChineseLamps is referring the "All information has been moved to Barenaked Ladies demo tapes" part. The information is now moved to a page that consolidates all of the BNL's demo tapes into one article, so it no longer needs its own. - Bkid ^Talk/_Contribs 07:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Normally, indie tapes don't get much notice. However, this is the cassette that launched the career of the Barenaked Ladies. As noted in the article, it is the first indie tape to achieve platinum status in sales. Coverage about the yellow tape cassette is available to establish notability. This include significant coverage about the tape. This book notes its importance to independent music in Canada. From George Strobolopolous. -- Whpq (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've just noticed that the Barenaked Ladies demo tapes article is a cut and paste move. This is not acceptable as the CC-BY-SA licensing requires that we maintain the attribution for the contribution. I'm going to ask an admin with some more knowledge in this area to provide some guidance. -- Whpq (talk) 14:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly would I attribute the past edits? The page for Buck Naked was erased, so I'm not sure if you could archive the past information. Also, I wrote all the information for Barenaked Recess and Variety Recordings myself. Sorry if it turns out I screwed up, but I'm new to not being a dick on Wikipedia. ChineseLamps (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not accusing you of being a dick. The maze of policies can be overwhelming for a new editor. Even as an experienced editor, I've asked for some guidance as noted in my note above. -- Whpq (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry if you thought I was saying YOU were calling me a dick. I was referencing the fact that I was once a vandal. But now I've decided to stop complaining about Wikipedia, and simply attempt to make it better. ChineseLamps (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2011 (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 06:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable recording, see page 76 of the book Barenaked Ladies: Public Stunts, Private Stories, Simon and Schuster, 2003, ISBN 9780743238359: ...The Yellow Tape broke all the rules, and sales records... or ...Eventually, the sales of The Yellow Tape soared to the platinum heights and in the process become a testament of working outside of the system to reach the people. .... CBC.ca says that it was "...the first indie release to go platinum in Canada." [57] This article has in my opinion potential for expansion. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please note that all the information on this article has been MERGED into an entirely different article. ChineseLamps (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2011 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett Chisolm

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

Non-notable? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 05:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found a some coverage of him only because of the tragedy which affected him. He did not receive this coverage as a notable football player, and the only non-tragedy-related stories are not enough to pass WP:GNG. He also fails WP:NSPORT, as he has yet to play in an NFL game. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I understand Eagles24/7's point, but I think there's enough enough to satisfy WP:GNG and with the national coverage (e.g., this story) he also passes WP:NCOLLATH #3. The story is not simply that the kid had both of his parents die from cancer in the months before his senior year. If that were it, there would be no argument. The real story that attracted national media coverage is how this kid (the son of janitors) overcame adversity to become a star football player. He was a walk-on at South Carolina who refused to quit and continued to play in his senior year following his parents' death. He excelled on the field, helping South Carolina win its first ever SEC East championship, and being selected as a second-team All-SEC player (bear in mind the SEC is the most competitive conference is American college football). He also excelled academically such that he was a semi-finalist for the William V. Campbell Trophy as the sport's top scholar-athlete. His is a remarkable and notable story that deservedly attracted national media attention. His accomplishments and news coverage are enough to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH #3. Cbl62 (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only significant coverage I see for Chisolm is because of his parents' deaths. If they did not die, do you think he'd still pass GNG in your opinion? Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point is he passes WP:GNG because he has had significant, non-trivial coverage. He had received a fair amount of media coverage even before his parents' death. Being a second-team All-SEC player, helping USC win its first SEC East championship, his selection as a Campbell Trophy semifinalist, his nomination by Steve Spurrier for the Rudy Awards, and other achievements would have attracted additional coverage even if his parents hadn't died. His personal triumph in achieving athletic and academic excellence despite the tragedy certainly made the story even more compelling. But not every athlete who suffers tragedy receives this type of coverage. It's a combination of his on-field and off-field achievements, the extensive news coverage, and overcoming tragedy, that makes Chisolm notable and his story so compelling. Cbl62 (talk) 05:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Cbl. He has convinced me that Chisholm is notable enough for an article. He's clearly not your WP:Run-of-the-mill player.--Giants27(T|C) 02:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eagles247, and I do find him to be WP:Run-of-the-mill vignette material with no lasting WP:IMPACT. Scholar athletes, perhaps unfortunately, are not notable in real-life and neither is a one-time second-team conference college player who was released from NFL practice squad. To (hopefully) save the standard rebuttals, I am knowingly overriding the "presumption" of notability in GNG, which itself allows a consensus to still determine a stand-alone article is not warranted in spite of the number of sources. I am referencing some essays and not guidelines which I find applicable, but don't persecute me as Wikipedia does not have firm rules aside from improving Wikipedia. I know deleting this article will be an uphill battle in that it is well-written and has citations.—Bagumba (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - T P 15:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha Quadrant ^talk 03:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His coverage -- for whatever reasons -- in RSs is to my mind sufficient to meet GNG.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of other Syrian opposition members

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

Potentially unencyclopedic unsourced list. It appears to be composed entirely of original research. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 03:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is kept its name needs changed. It's hard to tell what the topic is from the title. Them From Space 03:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic list (with incomprehensible inclusion criteria) which makes unsourced and potentially libelous claims about living people. This might even qualify as an attack page that should be speedy deleted. —SW— ^talk 00:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Laskowski

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

Non-notable minor league baseball figure. He never reached the major leagues and, as minor league manager, never even won a league championship. Fails WP:GNG. Alex (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 03:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This one you should definitely speedily delete rather than bother with AfD. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See my reply on the Bob Latshaw AfD. Alex (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Coverage does not satisfy WP:BASE/N #6. —SW— ^yak 00:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Krystle Lina

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

Nonnotable glamour model, fails WP:ENT and the GNG. No nontrivial GNews or GBooks hits. Only credited film role is as "Girl in Bed." Article has no reliable sourcing, not even documenting that "Krystal Lina" is the same person as "Krystal Suarez", the name the claimed film roles are listed under. Only attempts to expand the article over two years have been the additions of heavily promotional text. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources in the article, and no hits from Google News or Books. No indication of passing WP:ENT. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Birth name:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Even under her acting name and her birth name, this person has no coverage. Fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:15, 25 September 2011 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wireless Theatre Company

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

Completing nomination by user Tosspot2011 (see this diff) - unknown reason for nomination. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Nominator Tosspot2011 is a just-created SPA whose only function seems to be the placement of invalid/unexplained deletion notices. The other article it nominated [58] deals with a subject so clearly notable that good faith is highly dubious. (Neither article involved is in great shape, but clearly improvement rather than deletion candidates.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This 'new user' seems to know its way around the system, anyway. I suppose I should have removed the nomination instead of completing it. That said, there doesn't seem to be a great deal about this company on the web, apart from trivial mentions in the references given. It's won a Radio Academy award, which helps. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 05:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Controversy over the nomination aside, there doesn't appear to be all that much in the way of sources for this group. I am going for a weak keep based on the Radio Academy Award mentioned by Baffle gab1978 above, and on the mention in this Guardian review. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I just looked again, and it's a Guardian blog, not a Guardian review. I would like to see some more evidence of notability before going for a definite keep, I think. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A blog for a major newspaper is the same as calling it an opinion page, or whatnot. It counts as notable. Dream Focus 21:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:MarieleRT has posted his/her comments on the talk page:

Dear Baffle gab1978

Re: Speedy Deletion of The Wireless Theatre Company page.

Thank you very much for your contact regarding this matter. I do not believe this page should be deleted as it is important that the changing face of radio drama is documented. The popularity of the internet means that audio theatre is forging a new audience. The Wireless Theatre Company is changing the way people perceive radio drama, thorugh the use of downloading, live recordings and working with schools. It is a not for profit company who produce free radio drama and It is important that companies who are changing the face of a medium should be included on Wikipedia. The Wireless Theatre Company has legitimate links to the following Wikipedia pages:

Prunella Scales Nicholas Parsons Christopher Timothy Radio Drama Julian Glover Jenny Runacre Frankie Howerd JOhn Antrobus Radio Plays

And is a well respected and known company specialising in internet based radio drama. Just as music and film has moved into the internet download market, so has radio drama. Wireless Theatre are the leading independent producution company for free, modern, online radio drama and have been recognised by the Radio Academy through various awards, and the BBC by being accepted onto their preferred suppliers list. The company is also featured highly in Google and has a strong worldwide reputation. I would ask that you reconsider shutting the website down, and I am happy to change it as you see fit. (comments by User:MarieleRT, re-posted from the talk page. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A major newspaper has coverage of them on its official site. [59]. Some of the awards they win might be notable. The Radio Academy and the Radio Independents Group gave them some awards. [60] They also one a Fringe Report Award. Dream Focus 21:56, 23 September 2011 (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. –MuZemike 22:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Paraguayans

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

this is better served by a category. what next List of people from United States, List of Chinese?. LibStar (talk) 02:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. The scope of such a list is too broad. It would make more sense to create a category. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 04:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN, which states categories and lists go hand-in-hand. This list is clearly defined and is part of the larger structure of Category:Lists of people by nationality. Note to the closing admin - the nominator hasn't cited a single policy for deletion. Lugnuts (talk) 07:18, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

would you then support List of people from United States? LibStar (talk) 07:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, as a container list for List of people from Alaska, List of people from Alabama, etc. Lugnuts (talk) 10:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how about List of living people? LibStar (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Do you have a point to this? No, thought not. Lugnuts (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that a List of living people would be several thousand kilobytes and would fail WP:SAL, right? Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But what has that got to do with List of Paraguayans? Lugnuts (talk) 09:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it surprise you to know that the List of dead people could potentially be even longer? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 19:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of dead people redirects to Lists of people by cause of death. This page would be better as a category, as that is essentially what it is. In the current state it has little use. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 02:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CLN. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 09:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Lugnuts and part of an established pattern. Facts can be found on the sibling articles to this in Category:Lists of people by nationality where one will find a collection of US lists in Category:Lists of American people. Little countries like Paraguay have a single list; big coutries like the US have multiple lists. There is no reason to attack the little countries here for being what they are: little. Hmains (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per Hmains. Only comment to the Nom I would add is ... yeah! we do have Lists of Chinese people as well. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 19:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Chinese people does not exist. However we do have a Category:Lists of Chinese people. It is a bit deceptive formatting the link as Lists of Chinese people to make it look like it is a mainspace list. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 02:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Excessively indiscriminate. The citation of WP:CLN as a reason for keeping is faulty - the "Paraguayan people" category only contains three names, all other notable Paraguayans have been properly categorized by occupation, etc. Plus there's always WP:COMMONSENSE - having a list of every single notable from the entire history of a country is freakin' INSANE. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 17:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the list gets too big then the solution is to split it into manageable parts, as we have done with Americans, Chinese etc., not to delete it. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Suriel1981. This list is not maintainable and serves no useful purpose. —SW— ^gossip 00:05, 30 September 2011 (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. Reasonable minds often differ on whether sources are sufficient to establish a subject's notability. It's especially the case when there are many sources that mention or quote the subject but not so many that are actually about him. Here, reasonable minds differ quite evenly and there is no consensus either way. Mkativerata (talk) 10:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

R Viswanathan

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

Fails WP:BIO. Clear COI as the article was created by the subject's own son. All references are from personal website. — Fιnεmαnn ^(talk) 01:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —— Fιnεmαnn ^(talk) 01:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per above.Jethwarp (talk) 08:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added independent references. Shyamsunder (talk) 07:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your reference does not improve the notability of the article or the person. At most, it indicates that the person is an Indian diplomat who has been appointed as an ambassador to Argentina. Of course if verifiability was the issue, this would suffice, but the nomination is not for that. It also fails WP:DIPLOMAT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.3.77.239 (talk) 20:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@202.3.77.239, please remember to sign your posts with 4 tildes: ~~~~. Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@202.3.77.239, I don't see any explanation as to why the reference from [Oneindia.in] about R Viswanathan "does not improve the notability" of the topic. Your personal opinion that this reference does not improve the notability, especially from an IP address with no apparent experience in Wikipedia notability, and the explanation that follows about what the reference is, gives IMO zero weight to the assertion that the reference did not improve the notability. Unscintillating (talk) 11:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ecclesiastes 1:2: this is just a CV dressed up as an encyclopedia article. The sources provided are not enough to establish notability. Most of them are written by the subject, and the two that aren't do not amount to substantial coverage. The second source is the Indian Consulate, so not very independent of its subject, the coverage is only one line, and has been exaggerated in the article. That leaves source #1, a two-sentence WP:RUNOFTHEMILL little thing. So we have a grand total of three sentences of independent-ish coverage to justify this article. I don't think so. Reyk _YO! 11:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The WP:Notability of a topic exists independently of either the existence of an article about the topic on Wikipedia, or the content of any such article. Therefore, the absence of notability cannot be determined by only looking at the article. Analysis that leads to a delete outcome should also consider our policy at WP:ATD (alternatives to deletion), which is a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Unscintillating (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article now references a list of more than 40 media references, including five interviews. Unscintillating (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Delete really isn't a consideration here. The strongest argument that delete proponents can probably make is to claim that WP:GNG can be ignored if WP:DIPLOMAT isn't met, and that WP:DIPLOMAT must be strictly interpreted such that increasing trade between India and Argentina by 40% is not one of the "events of particular diplomatic importance" that we would consider. Then the argument would have to be to where to merge the material; again, the point is that this logic does not lead to a delete. One other possible line of development is to start going through the 40-50 media references on this webpage, many of which I have found to be returning 404 errors. This line of argument would still have to work through the newer references that can be found at Google news including those dated 14Sep2011, and dismiss the copies of the 404 errors, saved by R Viswanathan, as not having a reliable publisher. Even after going down this road, we would be left with a question as to where to merge the remaining material, not a delete. Unscintillating (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This translation of an interview with the topic shows the in depth coverage that means that we should keep the material as a stand-alone article. We now have a list of media coverage with more than 40 entries, and additional material can be found on Google news dated 14 September 2011. This set of coverage appears to far exceed WP:GNG notability guidelines. In addition, the topic meets WP:N notability, "worthy of notice" because readers will expect that this prolific author and speaker and unusually prominent diplomat will have an entry at Wikipedia. Unscintillating (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 01:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He doesn't appear to meet WP:DIPLOMAT. This appears to be a case where the subject has written a lot, but not had much written about him. Most of the articles on the "media" page of his website are just asking his opinions on world affairs, rather than being about him specifically. There is the exception of this article, but I would classify that as routine reporting and not really suitable to count towards notability. I couldn't find any sources through Google News or Google Books. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had no trouble finding two Google news references that talk about the ambassador and added them to the Bibliography. How did you miss the Google news reports from September 14, 2011 whose existence was already reported?

Regarding the statement that the topic doesn't meet WP:Diplomat: (1) Why doesn't increasing trade by 40% in nine months meet WP:Diplomat? (I'm not saying that I disagree because I don't know, but if you want to make this claim, what is your evidence?) (2) A failure to meet WP:Diplomat is not a sufficient argument to claim a lack of wp:notability without also claiming that WP:N is not met by other means—else WP:IAR must be invoked. (3) Failure to meet wp:notability means that we wouldn't have a standalone article, so it is not a cause for deletion, it is a cause to consider to what topic to merge the reliable material. (4) Being asked questions by multiple reliable sources in the US, India, and Latin America; means that the topic "attracts attention", which is one of the fundamental understandings of what makes a topic wp:notable. Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 02:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the article still sounds too much like a CV, we're dealing with an ambassador from a major country to several major countries, with a fair number of publications, media access, etc. We went over some of this issues on previous ambassador AfDs-- I specifically recall the case of Pulat Abdullayev, Russian ambassador to several African nations. In that case, it was decided, essentially, that there's little separating someone like R Viswanatha or Abdullayev from someone like John Beyrle, U.S. ambassador to Russia-- all that you'll find on a career diplomat like Beyrle are his writings and various documents associated with his everyday work as ambassador. His notability, like that of Abdullayev and R Viswanatha, derives from being at the top of his profession. Career diplomats generally aren't newsmakers who attract biographical works in the press. Avram (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here are the quotes from the last two Google news sources added to the article,:

Miami: Latin Business Chronicle. December 11, 2009. "The Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) calls him "Mr. Latin America"...is hailed for boosting business ties with India."
Andres Oppenheimer of The Miami Herald, "Unlike most Indian career diplomats...Viswanathan is a highly visible Latin America promoter." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unscintillating (talk • contribs)

Keep Reliable sources have been found providing significant coverage of the person. So the primary notability guideline of WP:GNG has been met. Nothing else matters. Dream Focus 09:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. The page was deleted by LadyofShalott per CSD G3 (blatant hoax). Non-admin closure. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PTWS

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

Declined PROD. Concern was: Neologism with no evidence of actual usage. May also be a hoax. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original prodder. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G3, blatant hoax.Novangelis (talk) 01:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Clearly a joke. --MelanieN (talk) 01:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously WP:MADEUP. Msnicki (talk) 02:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT. →Σ τ c. 03:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is an neologism and lacks reliable third party sources. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 04:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I AM MAN

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

Declined PROD. Concern was: 'Non notable, yet to be released short film: WP:TOOSOON' Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is my recommendation that you keep this article. Though the film has not yet been released, a sneak preview screening of the rough cut is being shown for the public on the worldwide web for a 24 hour period. This means that the project is of public importance. If the film were only being shown privately or for cast & crew only, it would be a different story as that would make it a private event.

Again, "I AM MAN" is not technically yet to be released since beginning at 12AM on Saturday, the film will be available to view worldwide via the internet for an allotted period of time. Though it may not be in its completed form, it is still for all intents and purposes a tangible project in some fixed form.

There are not any published news stories about the film except for the blog feature that was included in the links but may have been deleted by you. There is a radio interview that discussed the film, and another radio interview scheduled. But the link that featured a mention of the show may not be accessible.

Please reconsider the deletion of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmfetalle (talk • contribs) 00:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No independent reliable sources have been provided, and it is unknown where this film will be distributed after the one-day Internet release. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - to be accepted, this article would need to satisfy our criteria at WP:GNG and WP:NF, and supported by reliable sources. It doesn't. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any sources on Google News, Books, or Scholar. It may become notable after its release, but it does not look like it is notable now. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonnotable webfilm. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 07:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bodrifty

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

Am unable to locate a village named Bodrifty in Cornwall. There are the remains of an ancient settlement of this name at Bodrifty Farm which lies within the boundary of the village of Newmill. - Dave Crosby (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep—there seems indeed to be no inhabited village in cornwall by this name, but there are many, many sources about the remains of the ancient settlement you mention, which is currently called by this name. that's what the article is probably about, and if not, can be made to be about that, and then would be clearly notable, right? the books search in the find sources template gives endless places to start. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment— That's a great point, would it need moving to a new title? I love the re-write, it meant I could geotag the thing which is why I was there in the first place. I assume I can't withdraw my AfD? - Dave Crosby (talk) 02:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can. Malleus Fatuorum 02:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I want to do that. I don't remember reading about it in the policy pages (I had to read up on AfD, it was my first), what's the preferred method? - Dave Crosby (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Speedy keep. Malleus Fatuorum 02:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Super. Oh my, that's a lot of work. It took me ages to figure the AfD. Would you guys mind if we waited the seven days, or do we know a friendly admin who can do the close? - Dave Crosby (talk) 02:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i don't mind waiting, especially since the only alternative that comes to mind is that i figure out how to do it, and i really don't want to! — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It may be possible to write an article such as the user above describes but this is not it. Malleus Fatuorum 01:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment— you want to take another look at it? i rewrote the whole thing. anyway, notability is not based on what's in the article, but what there is to put in the article, and the sources existed even before i rewrote the whole thing. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, I've struck my delete vote. Malleus Fatuorum 02:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, and thanks for the quick cleanup! — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because of the excellent work by alf.laylah.wa.laylah. Well done!Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:15, 23 September 2011 (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) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 21:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scarborough General Hospital

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

fails WP:ORG. hospitals are not inherently notable. coverage seems to only show people reported as being turning up to this hospital. incidentially, it appears from coverage that there are 2 hospitals of identical name in USA and Canada. [61]. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hospitals may not be "inherently notable", but it would be very unusual for any NHS general hospital not to attract coverage in reliable sources - they are large institutions with a significant effect on their communities. Yes, lots of the Google News hits are about people being born in, dying in or being taken to the hospital, but there are some among them with coverage of the hospital itself. The first few that I found were this, this and this dubious honour. The squeamish may wish to avoid following this link about an operation performed at the hospital. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage does not equal notability. Yes, all hospitals will be mentioned in the news from time to time when sick or injured people are taken there. Yes, there will be news items about budget questions from time to time. Yes, they will all have botched operations and other mishaps that get in the news from time to time. In no way is this notable per se. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On the contrary, I would say that the history of the main NHS general hospital in a district is of inherent notability in the context of history and life in a major town and the region around it -- probably of significantly more notability than most tourist attractions and grand houses that we (quite properly) include without even thinking twice.

Consider, for example, how much blue and how little red there is in List of hospitals in England. The article has clear scope for expansion. (Compare for example Royal Surrey County Hospital for another typical NHS district general hospital). How big is this hospital? When was it built? What has been its history? What administrative changes has it been through? What external assessments has it achieved? How many patients does it treat? All of this is material we should quite properly expect to be able to source, and which we should aspire to do so as being of considerable relevance if we want our articles to comprehensively treat the town and the area around it. Jheald (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please provide sources to demonstrate WP:ORG is met. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's sources available aplenty [62][63], not to mention those already listed by Tom Morris. Seems notable to me. --Deadly∀ssassin 12:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"There's sources available aplenty" for the other hospital with a similar name, the one in Toronto. Add "Yorkshire" to the news search [64], and you'll find a surprisingly brief list of news items consisting of "coverage" that is only a trivial mention ("and the victim was taken to ____ hospital") and WP:ROUTINE items that get stuck in the newspaper for all WP:MILL hospitals. First three items: (1) man's penis cut off, taken to hospital; (2) person falls off cliff, taken to hospital; (3) soap opera actor beaten up, taken to hospital. Significant coverage accruing to hospital? None. Similarly, if you add "Yorkshire" to the Google books search [65], you find incidental mentions and the odd directory listing. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 07:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, in fact a little research tells me that the hospital is actually called "Scarborough District General Hospital" per this [66], however there are next to no references to that which I assume means that absolutely noone actually calls it that. A search for Scarborough Hospital brings a few sources [67] which led to some stories about criticism of the hospital, a financial crisis [68], criminal disorder in their A&E department [69], a new maternity ward [70] and "celebrity" chefs doing a tv turn over the hospital's catering [71]. Admittedly it's slim pickings (I guess that's what happens for a hospital with a catchment area of only about 250,000) but there is coverage. ETA: There appears to be at least one book about the hospital [72] unfortunately not scanned --Deadly∀ssassin 08:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some stories from the BBC, not just run-of-the-mill I think: Scarborough and York hospital trusts in merger talks (28.10.2010), 'Concern' over Scarborough and Bridlington hospitals (7.10.2010), Hospital trust gets worst rating (18.10.2007). Selina Scott also gave an unflattering thumbnail sketch in the Daily Mail, of the hospital where she was born, and where her father died [73] (13.4.2009): "... a hospital with a very poor reputation. It has the lowest ratio of doctors to patients of any hospital in the country. Recent cuts imposed by the NHS trust had driven the hospital's consultants and nurses out on to the streets, protesting at threatened job losses, so that now Scarborough was one of the worst performing hospitals in the country... Its entrance is now gum-splattered and tatty; a plaque on the wall is a reminder of a royal opening from long ago... No orderly came [over a whole week] with a bucket and mop to either clean the corridor [on the first floor] or the service lift, which was also covered in filth... It seemed the spirit of the place had also been given the last rites." (Though she acknowledges that the stroke unit "was, in contrast, clean, bright and well-run, a ward which had been modernised"). There have also been other national reports of other bad experiences [74][75] So, as one would expect for an institution of this local significance, there has been at least some coverage, even if it doesn't seem to have been very flattering. Jheald (talk) 09:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments so far given to keep this listing do not hold water:

There is or must exist significant coverage - ~~Yet none is provided, and I didn't find any.~~

DeadlyAssassin and Jheald's new research (see above) have provided some new sources that, while still a bit thin for me, do at least allow for notability to be debated, in one area: reports of poor quality of care and (presumably related) financial difficulties. Do people think that these are instances of a broader trend among at least a significant percentage of English hospitals, or is this more a case of a particular hospital being a notably bad egg, at least on the evidence of the various citations? If the former, then what we're left with is an especially run-of-the-mill subject that does not warrant a WP entry. If the latter, and if it is felt that it crosses the threshhold of notability, then surely this topic merits the addition of a dedicated section within the entry, yes? --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MILL is a highly disputed essay, nowhere near approaching the status of a guideline. Encyclopedias, by definition, do not cover only exceptional topics. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NHS hospitals are inherently notable - This is directly contradicted by WP:ORGIN--> "No Inherited Notability". I would certainly grant that the subject is important. but importance is different than notability.
Other NHS hospitals are notable - Per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, "that other similar articles exist is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions". --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 07:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to quote WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS please also quote the very next line of the nutshell: "When used properly, a logical rationalization of "Other Stuff Exists" may be used in a perfectly valid manner in discussions of what articles to create, delete, or retain." -- i.e. while it's not enough just to point to other stuff that exists, it is appropriate to look at other stuff that exists, discuss why that other stuff exists, and argue that that rationale also exists here. That is exactly the kind of argument I was making above.

I'm glad that you now accept that notable coverage exists. But it's not really actually the stories in that coverage that are what make the hospital notable. What really makes the hospital notable is that it is the principal local hospital for 200,000 people, with the next nearest comparable hospital over 40 miles away ([76], p.2). Most of those 200,000 people will have been born in the hospital; roughly two-thirds can expect to die there; for all of them that makes it a significant landmark in their living environment. That makes it exactly the kind of case that WP:INHERENT applies to, for the reasons that essay explains: because it has real-world significance, that means that, for example, a proposal that its management be taken over becomes a story that the BBC will cover -- they judge the story as significant and newsworthy because they see the hospital as significant and notable to a sufficient part of their audience, exactly the criterion we are being called on to assess here. The situation is similar to WP:Notability (high schools), which makes the point that such organisations will therefore almost inevitably tend to pass WP:ORGIN, because of that effect.

Indeed, I am quite surprised that we don't yet have an NHS wikiproject or taskforce, with at least part of its agenda to turn the list of district general hospitals blue, with a standard checklist suggesting the sort of facts most such articles should be able to report -- for example, as I cited above, an article like Royal Surrey County Hospital gives a good example of what should be achievable for most hospitals. In this case the more immediate problem is probably that the hospital official website (considered a WP:RS for purely factual material for the purpose of WP:V if not WP:N) doesn't appear to very easily produce the information. But the local PCT has just launched a strategic review [77] and published some wider strategic planning material [78] (nb p.44 et seq), and there's also quite a stack of the hospital's old newsletters etc online; and who knows what other NHS documents can be found once one's worked out where to look; so with luck it should be possible to dig out at least some of the desired facts, if not a comprehensive pen profile.

Ultimately we should be trying to provide readers with whatever reliable material may be useful to them. If you find that you are consistently opposing articles on subjects you would accept are important, I would suggest it's time to renew your acquaintance with WP:IAR. That must come before any bureaucracy. Jheald (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat recommendation to delete. In case I was unclear, such coverage as exists falls well short of notability, in my view. If a hundred million people shuffle on and another hundred million shuffle off this mortal coil in a year, is that fact notable? Sure. Is every individual birth and death notable? No. Is the fact that a few thousand did so at this or that random hospital notable? No, not on that fact alone. If you had challenged me to invent an especially unnotable hospital so as to challenge the notion that every hospital is inherently notable, I could hardly have done a better job. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear. Of course the fact that the hospital treats x thousand patients is not globally unusual or anything surprising to be noted. But my point was rather different: it is the fact that it underlines the importance of the hospital to the 200,000 people whom it serves. To those people the hospital is not "run-of-the-mill", it is their single unique local general hospital, the only one within 40 miles. That's what makes it worth trying to write an article about: the subject is important to a significant number of our readership. (The fact that proposed management changes become regional news stories underlines this). Their interests should not be dismissed (WP:ITSLOCAL). A good concise presentation of the facts about this hospital is something that would be of value, and a worthwhile addition to the encyclopedia. Jheald (talk) 08:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More than enough sources have been provided above to satisfy the general notability guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion noted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Health Service Jheald (talk) 09:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion noted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England Jheald (talk) 09:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion noted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine Jheald (talk) 09:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion noted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Yorkshire Jheald (talk) 09:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. There are sufficient reports and references supplied to meet the WP:GNG, there are also the various reports produced on the hospital by the Care Quality Commission that are independent of subject and give in depth coverage, such as [79]. Keith D (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm a bit surprised to see this here as hospitals (certainly regional ones like this) are significant institutions. The arguments about whether something is exceptional or unusual are not grounded in policy. The only reference (I think) to that sort of terminology is in WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:EVENT, but neither of those really applies to something like a hospital which isn't an "event" and where the coverage is persistent. The aims of those policies are to stop articles being created on an event or person on the basis of a flurry of news reports. It is also very subjective - there are lots of things which aren't unique, e.g. football players, but we don't dismiss coverage of them on the basis of it being 'routine' coverage. Polequant (talk) 11:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that their is a number of hospitals with this name means that we need to distinguish between them. Looks like the article needs imprvement not deletion.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:50, 27 September 2011 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mateus da Costa Meira

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

Person "notable" after of just one event. damiens.rf 17:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject appears to be notable for a single event. However there doesn't appear to be any other coverage on the subject. Addtionally the article is not written in a neutral point of view. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 04:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He doesn't pass WP:BLP1E or WP:CRIME. I could see there possibly being an article on the event itself, as it caused the Brazilian government to ban the most violent video games at the time, but it still doesn't seem that there was any lasting historical impact other than this. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:24, 23 September 2011 (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 all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 World Grand Prix 2010 in Bucharest

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

also nominating:

these are mere qualifying events that do not determine champions. there is no significant enduring coverage to meet WP:EVENT or WP:PERSISTENCE. LibStar (talk) 00:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Qualifying races are not notable. Their results can be briefly noted in the championship article, if at all. —SW— ^gab 00:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per nom and WP:ROUTINE. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:39, 30 September 2011 (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.