Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 August 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 10 August	12 August >

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. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Abu

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that the article asserts that he has played for the Sierra Leonean national team, a fact not supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no evidence that he played for his national team, or appeared in a fully professional league or received significant media coverage. – Kosm1 fent 07:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no evidence that he played for this team, and besides, it fails WP:GNG. JoeGazz84 ♦ 19:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I cleaned up the references on the article (one was poorly formatted and the other lead to a page that does not exist). I also added a reference from an independent source. The second reference talks about him playing with the national team. I think that there is plenty of coverage of him in the media as you can see from these: [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5]. Some of these are player profiles but I think that adding up all of the references would count towards weight in notability. I don't tend to disagree with experienced editors, but I would think this one would warrant a second look at the sources. Maybe I'm wrong, just my opinion. --MalcomMarcomb11376 (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you provided are all routine sports journalism. The second source in the article, not only does not talk about him playing for the national team, it does not talk about him at all. It appears to be a player profile of someone called Robin Neupert. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's talking about the second link in his comment, which is this one: [6]. I see no evidence there that he's played for the Sierra Leone senior team though, and junior teams are usually not considered notable enough. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete, no evidence as far as I can see that he's actually played for the national team or in a fully professional league. I appreciate the work that's been done by MalcomMarcomb11376 to clean this up, but I still don't think it meets the notability bar unfortunately. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SAS Flight 910

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

Non notable incident. A plane diverts, no injuries, blah...blah...blah. Take your choice WP:AIRCRASH, WP:NOTNEWS, that the article is totally unreferenced, or that it may be the work of one of Ryan Kirkpatrick's socks. ...William 23:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William 23:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. ...William 23:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William 23:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable for any reason. Good sensible reaction to a minor in-flight emergency, nothing more.Petebutt (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to be Fitzpatrick because the spelling is too good.Petebutt (talk) 01:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing notable about this incident, just because something happened on a plane doesn't make it automatically notable. JoeGazz84 ♦ 19:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Monumentally non-notable incident.Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added 2 references, but don't have strong enough opinion if it meets WP:N or not. Ipsign (talk) 10:04, 18 August 2012 (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 Agool, Delete Khudhair. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jalil Zaidan Agool

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that the article asserts he has played for the Iraqi national team, a fact not supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both: While I did find proof that Jalil played in the Asian Cup (here) both articles fail WP:GNG and for that reason, they should be deleted. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 03:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agool - As nominator. He's played for the Iraqi national team in a major international tournament, which means he clearly passes WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 07:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agool per Sir Sputnik – his international appearance justifies notability. However delete Naama Khudhair, no evidence that he is notable. – Kosm1 fent 07:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agool, delete Khudhair - Giant Snowman 09:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agool, delete Adil: Okay. Changed mind now. Someone should add it then to Agool's page. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agool, delete Adil Agool is notable, but there is nothing about Adil that makes him notable. JoeGazz84 ♦ 19:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't get it, both articles claims that the player played for Iraq in the 1996 Asian Cup without source. What differs Agool from Khudhair? Mentoz86 (talk) 23:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the link I provided before I crossed it out. It says that Agool came on as a sub in the Asian Cup. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 00:00, 14 August 2012 (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 Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest 1999. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:28, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Mullans

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

Seems to be notable only for one event : WP:SINGLEEVENT. Article lacks other notable albums or songs by the group which may have charted. Lacks information regarding the group/band's activities outside Eurovision event. Bleubeatle (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Eurovision itself is notable enough as you already know and articles such as this are covered by WP:BIO1E. Wesley Mouse 22:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bleubeatle (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bleubeatle (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - what is the point of this nomination?. covered by WP:BIO1E.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

note to closing admin this !vote was canvassed [7]

I find it highly offensive that a user has falsely accused me of canvassing without justification. As a member of WP:EURO I was acting in good faith to inform another member of the project of an article discussion - know that they didn't have the article alerts page on their watchlist. I felt it polite to allow a member of the same project the opportunity to participate in a discussion and make their own !vote choice. Wesley Mouse 14:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Justification = BabbaQ votes keep 99.9% of the time. Wesley mouse failed to notify those who are known to vote delete. It's offensive not to notify a wide range of editors. LibStar (talk) 14:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still assume good faith Libstar. I have no reason to !vote Keep if it is a Delete worthy article. Me and Wesley are members of the same Eurovision wikiproject and both have knowledge about the contest and its participants and that is the main reason to why Wesley notified me, not because he wanted a Keep !vote.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Wesley mouse informed a wide range of editors I would have no issue. Selective notification arouses suspicion. LibStar (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wesley have understood your point even though he is of another stance then you, and I have added the notification article now on any AfDs concerning Eurovision. Case closed.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you had suspicions LibStar, then why didn't you engage in a polite discussion at my talk page first and find out if canvassing had occurred before jumping to the wrong conclusions and posting false accusations about myself which is by far a more serious violation than the one you are accusing me of. Wesley Mouse 14:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley just WP:LETGO . LibStar (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you for real? You throw false accusations at myself, and then expect me to just ignore them and move on? Either resolve this matter or retract your false accusations - can't have it both ways. Wesley Mouse 15:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LETGO LibStar (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't see how WP:BIO1E applies to this at all -- this article isn't a biography. And if it was, it seems to me BIO1E would support deletion, not keeping. As it stands, being a group, this article must meet WP:BAND. And that does not seem entirely the case at this point. -- BenTels (talk) 00:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to comment: Project Eurovision from what I gather has gone through similar cases like this and WP:BAND was questioned many a time; and people were told that WP:BIO1E covers articles relating to Eurovision Song Contest participants, as the majority of them only ever participate once, with the odd handful making returns. As the contest is notable within its own right due to the grand scale of the contest and long-standing global recognition then an article relating to an artist participating in the contest would warrant an inclusion. That is the way I have interpreted it all this time based on comments/advice of others. But looking at the criterion at WP:BAND then this article most certainly covers points 9 and maybe even 10 in that list - and WP:BAND does state that at least one criterion needs to be met. Wesley Mouse 00:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I second Wesley on his description of the matter.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Aside from the question of whether or not the EuroVision is sufficiently notable to carry over under WP:BIO1E, that still doesn't explain why that policy should suddenly apply to what is clearly not a biographical article. As for WP:BAND, number 9 applies to winners and runners-up, not #16. And point 10 is not about contestants (plus it says that if that is the only claim to notability, a separate article is probably not warranted). -- BenTels (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't mean to offend anyone close to WP:EURO. With all do respect, the song contest is indeed a grand-scale event but just like other notable events/competition/TV programs like The X-Factor or American Idol, many articles based on its participants of the show were often challenged for deletion as they don't seem to have any notability beyond the competition. A simple search online yielded nothing else from The Mullans beyond the competition or any recent/late activities within their country that would meet WP:BIO1E so I nominated their article. Bleubeatle (talk) 10:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one is offended. Just surprised that someone wants to spend time with discussing this subject of Eurovision notability over and over again. And also bring AfDs up like this one which are destined to end with a Keep. Just a bit odd. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite interesting that on WP:EURO there are 6 project goals, with one of them regarding articles for Eurovision songs and artists (seen here). Either the project on a whole are doing things incorrectly, or guidances are being misquoted. If its the former then serious discussions between project members would be urgently needed. If its the latter, then it does raise a question as to why are so many Eurovision-related articles are all of a sudden being mass-nominated for mergers/deletions etc. The odd one every now and then would be plausible, but this past couple of months has seen quite a large increase in articles being nominated for one thing or another. Wesley Mouse 12:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Group fails basic notability. Being a part of Eurovision does not account for notability. Statυs (talk) 03:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually participating in the worlds biggest music competition on television does. --BabbaQ (talk) 11:06, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Representing an entire nation is notable too.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me the Wikipedia guideline or policy that shows that if you participate in Eurovision, the hell with Wikipedia's notablity guidelines; it doesn't apply to you. Please; I'd really like to see it. Statυs (talk) 11:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using swear words to justify deletion of a notable article seem to be non-productive. --BabbaQ (talk) 12:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that's enough now. We seem to be having a difficult time understanding each other and this is now leading towards frustration. Remember to comment on the content not the contributor. Therefore I'd suggest not replying to one another if neither party is benefiting in the discussion. Peace Bleubeatle (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to WP:BAND "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, instrumentalist, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:" and then it gives a list of 12 criterion. Of the 12 criterion the majority of articles for Eurovision participants fulfil points 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, 11, and 12. Now some users will probably question how I can justify that a participant would fulfil each of those points. That is quite simple, but one that would be lengthy to add here - and I wouldn't want to get another mouthful of abuse for being "long-winded" with my responses. Wesley Mouse 11:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about the points BabbaQ is raising; I've read through WP:NMUSIC once more and it says "failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." There may be other points that could be raised other than the group's involvement/participation at this event perhaps?. Bleubeatle (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well then Bleubeatle, you have just hit the nail on the head and even given yourself a reasonable answer to this whole debacle too. You have rightfully noted an article fulfilling any of the criteria doesn't mean it should be deleted nor does it mean they should be kept. So it is clear that we need to RfC this on a whole covering a wider perspective of Eurovision-related articles, before making a decision whether to nominate articles - thus rendering this and any other current AfD's meaningless unless we know a clear stance on where to go from here. Wesley Mouse 12:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as we reach this situation every time a Eurovision article is nominated for AfD, and the same arguments get thrown across the cyberspace - then it looks like we need to engage in ARBCOM discussion in order to have a more broader consensus from a wider comunity in regards to Eurovision-related material. This would be highly beneficial as we would be able to determine once and for all how the WP:EURO project as a whole should be conducting their business, and when an article should and shouldn't be created. Wesley Mouse 12:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also Bleubeatle is now wanting to influence the closing of this and another article. While at the same time accusing me and Wesley of doing so--BabbaQ (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no influence going on in that RfC. Neither was I making accusation of you or Wesley Mouse of canvassing. I said "allegations" have been raised by a user" and it worries me how these AfDs are leading. I can understand your frustration here but taking it on someone like this won't achieve anything. It will only cause disruption from both parties. I suggest you refrain from making anymore points like this until a non-involved neutral admin comes along to assess this consensus. Bleubeatle (talk) 12:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Different words, same meaning. The only one not gaining from making baseless accusations is yourself. End of story.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Notice to closing admin - This discussion has been contaminated severely seeing as there accusation of canvassing between myself and BabbaQ. And other users appear to be doing the same in order to gather support for mass-deletion of Eurovision articles. Diffs are as follows - 1, 2, and 3. People shouldn't cast accusations of canvassing, and then go about the same actions themselves. Wesley Mouse 12:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge and redirect to Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest 1999. There is no sources describing enduring coverage of the group around the time of the event, meaning they faded as soon as they lost. That's a flash-in-the-pan, and not appropriate for articles on WP. While WP:BAND may give several criteria that are met here, those are only presumed notability, and it is being challenged due to lack of sourcing, so this is a case where that presumption has subsequently failed and ergo there should not be an article for this group. --MASEM (t) 13:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the point. Being nationally selected by a country to represent it at the world biggest televised music compeititon is within WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just explained that BAND/MUSIC is only a presumption of notability, and not an assurance. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest 1999 - Per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suntribe. In a summary, notable under WP:NMUSIC but having a bio and an a entry article is unnecessary per WP:BIO1E, and really it makes little sense having two articles which de facto cover the same subject - an entry into a contest. CT Cooper · talk 14:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest 1999. Since the group has no notability outside the event covered by this page, having two articles is clearly redundant. Black Kite (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest 1999 - Changing my original !vote from keep to merge. In hindsight of what has been said (albeit some harsh comments aimed at myself too) a merger does seem more plausible rather than a complete deletion. A lot of the guidances quoted appear to conflict with each other, with some links backing-up a deletion, and some backing-up a keep. This causes great concerns to myself personally as having conflicting guidelines leaves situations open to interpretation or even loopholes within the system, and that isn't cooperative nor helpful to any user old or new. What may be perceived as an overall solution to and prevention of future scenarios like this from reoccurring would be for some sort of medcab or request for comment within WP:EURO to establish a future president for articles relating to Eurovision participants/songs. Wesley Mouse 14:48, 13 August 2012 (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} 05:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

J.D. Masterson

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. I can't find any coverage about this author in reliable sources. The original contributor is blocked for faking references and had a history of spamming. SmartSE (talk) 22:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lots of coverage via blogs, Facebook, etc. but couldn't find much in the way of reliable sources, either. Doesn't pass WP:AUTHOR via WP:GNG.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the above reasons. Autarch (talk) 03:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. All the current press coverage is related to promotional work for the book. NOTE - The book appears to have won a regional award, and if it wins a national award or multiple regional awards, then that would bring it up to notability. But it's not there yet. --Lquilter (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same reasons as above - non-notable, heavy on promotion, mostly created by an editor whose primary purpose was WP promotion. KarlM (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (nomination withdrawn). CtP (t • c) 21:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Coachella Festival line-ups

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

Ultimately unencyclopedic topic; unfortunately, this essentially boils down to a schedule or pamphlet rather than an encyclopedia article. CtP (t • c) 22:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The event is notable (see Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival) and this list article appears to meet WP:SAL. 72Dino (talk) 22:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Verifiable encyclopedic information. I would have suggested a merge to the festival article but it would make the page too large, so leave it as a separate article.--Michig (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2012 (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 deleted by Jimfbleak: A7 - no significance (non-admin technical closure). Ymblanter (talk) 09:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Full Contact Contender

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

Doesn't appear to meet notability. Unsourced. Kumioko (talk) 21:51, 11 August 2012 (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.

Chrystold Chetty

The result was Speedy deletion as self-promotion Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Recommend deletion. Appears to be self written. NO references, no formatting or wikilinks and doesn't seem to meet notability. Kumioko (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - numerous news articles and mentioned in two books establish notability, however the article does need to be rewritten. If not rewritten, WP:BLOWITUP - current article is not encyclopedic. GregJackP Boomer! 02:47, 12 August 2012 (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 Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Habib Rahman (detainee)

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

On a living Guantanamo prisoner (now released). Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BIO, WP:GNG. for WP:SIGCOV There are no secondary sources to claim notability of the subject and the citations used are WP:PRIMARY sources (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Reliability of US military summary reports) DBig Xray 21:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay, for the reasons explained by the nom. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay. No significant coverage regarding individual, fails WP:ANYBIO & WP:GNG. However, as a member of a significant group, a redirect can be left in the article's place.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject lacks "significant coverage" in reliable sources as is therefore not notable under WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 06:20, 18 August 2012 (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 deleted by Jimfbleak: A7 - no notability (non-admin technical closure). Ymblanter (talk) 09:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personalization, Pre training, and Segmentation Principles for e learning

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

Blatantly an essay, OR and not useable in its present condition. No amount of work could make this into an encyclopedic article. Fish ^Barking? 20:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, original research and unsalvageable. Ubelowme _U ^Me 20:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR. GregJackP Boomer! 02:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not sure that it's original research, since similar ideas exist in the cited articles, but the references to these ideas are not sufficient to make them notable for Wikipedia. CapitalSasha ~ talk 02:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essay. Whether it's OR or synthesis or whatever, there isn't an encyclopedic topic in here that's not already covered elsewhere in a better fashion. This just strikes me as someone's homework. Hairhorn (talk) 03:10, 12 August 2012 (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 Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nahir Shah

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

On a living Guantanamo prisoner (now released). Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BIO, WP:GNG. There are no secondary sources to claim notability of the subject and the citations used are WP:PRIMARY sources (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Reliability of US military summary reports) DBig Xray 20:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay, for the reasons explained by the nom. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Subject does not pass WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:SOLDIER; however, as the subject is part of a notable group, even if not notable themselves, a redirect to said group can be left in the articlespace.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject lacks "significant coverage" in reliable sources as is therefore not notable under WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mentions in trial transcripts do not confer notability, and there is complete lack of significant and specific coverage by secondary published reliable sources. Manifestly fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Given that the creator of this article has created what appears to be dozens or more likely hundreds similar articles on manifestly non-notable individuals that are currently sitting in mainspace and need to be deleted, the "merge" option is unrealistic here. Nobody has the time to sift through this mountain of obscure non-notable material and figure out what and how and where may be merged here. It should simply be deleted, period. Nsk92 (talk) 13:33, 18 August 2012 (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 Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gul Zaman

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

On a living Guantanamo prisoner (now released). Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BIO, WP:GNG. There are no secondary sources to claim notability of the subject and the citations used are WP:PRIMARY sources (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Reliability of US military summary reports) DBig Xray 20:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage to warrant subject passes WP:GNG. Fails WP:ANYBIO & WP:SOLDIER.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay, for the reasons explained by the nom. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirct per Bushranger. GregJackP Boomer! 11:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - individual subject doesn't meet the requirement for "significant coverage" in reliable sources per WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 06:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Mentions in trial transcripts do not confer notability, and there is complete lack of significant and specific coverage by secondary published reliable sources. Manifestly fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Given that the creator of this article has created what appears to be dozens or more likely hundreds similar articles on manifestly non-notable individuals that are currently sitting in mainspace and need to be deleted, the "merge" option is unrealistic here. Nobody has the time to sift through this mountain of obscure non-notable material and figure out what and how and where may be merged here. It should simply be deleted, period. Nsk92 (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2012 (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. With sources, consensus is that the subject meets the general notability guideline and WP:PORNBIO. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 10:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Minx

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

No indication of notability of this pornographic actress. Thine Antique Pen (public) 20:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have added some sources so please keep the article and remove Article for deletion template, thank you. Ramesh Ramaiah ^talk 02:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am leaving this discussion open. Thine Antique Pen (public) 13:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - decent coverage by multiple reliable sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per passing WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR and WP:PORNBIO#3. Not just a pornographic actress, she appears to be a fairly well known public figure in France. She received enough reliable coverage to pass GNG, including a quite satisfying biographic article on Libération (I have added to the article). She also starred on several mainstream films in significant roles. Notable. Cavarrone (talk) 06:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep , but keep nonetheless - Does not pass #1 or #2 of the notability guidelines for porn stars; however, being mentioned numerous times in the mainstream media covers #3 of the guidelines. Also, the fact that she was in a documentary about the profession shows notability as well and carries quite a bit of weight (IMO). --MalcomMarcomb11376 (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2012 (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 Bad Santa#Sequel. (non-admin closure) TheSpecialUser ^TSU 06:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Santa 2

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

Little information is available about this upcoming movie in reliable sources. Seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON. CapitalSasha ~ talk 20:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Without current reliable sources, it's taking up space as a placeholder article. Bumm13 (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per being TOO SOON to Bad Santa#Sequel where, even if not yet meriting a separate article, policy instructs that the topic of this anticipated sequel might be written of in context and sourced accordingly using numerous available sources.early later. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:52, 12 August 2012 (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 Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Mussa Yakubi

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

On a living Guantanamo prisoner (now released). Fails WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BIO, WP:GNG. There are no secondary sources to claim notability of the subject and the citations used are WP:PRIMARY sources (WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 84#Reliability of US military summary reports) DBig Xray 20:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay, for the reasons explained by the nom. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, there are a copy of his combatant review hosted by the New York Times, but I did not find other significant coverage regarding the subject of the article. As a member of a notable group, a redirect can be left in the article place to Afghan detainees at Guantanamo Bay. It can be argued that the document is significant coverage, however if every case that is put online about an individual warrants significant coverage than every publicly available case about a convicted felon would thus make the felon notable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks "significant coverage" in reliable sources required for notability under WP:GNG. Anotherclown (talk) 06:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Mentions in trial transcripts do not confer notability, and there is complete lack of significant and specific coverage by secondary published reliable sources. Manifestly fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Given that the creator of this article has created what appears to be dozens or more likely hundreds similar articles on manifestly non-notable individuals that are currently sitting in mainspace and need to be deleted, the "merge" option is unrealistic here. Nobody has the time to sift through this mountain of obscure non-notable material and figure out what and how and where may be merged here. It should simply be deleted, period. Nsk92 (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2012 (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. Given that the only reason not to delete this is false and trivially verifiable, it seems like there's a clear consensus to delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Perry's House of Payne (Season 9)

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

Why the page should be deleted Since8-12 (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a page for a season of Tyler Perry's House of Payne that doesn't exist. --Since8-12 (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Article is uncensored and seems to be a hoax. There are only seven seasons, and all seven seasons are already listed on Wikipedia here. -Aaron Booth (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Cleanup: The TBS website seems to indicate that there are at least 8 seasons. ( http://www.tbs.com/stories/story/0,,112036,00.html ) as opposed to IMDb which lists 7 (with the extra long 7th season). Comparing the titles to what is here in Wikipedia, it looks like what is now listed as Season 9 is not yet listed on the TBS site. Since IMDb seems to be disliked as a WP source, I wonder why the seasons go with that rather than the Networks website? Seems to me that this needs Cleanup rather than deletion. (I don't follow the show, so I have no idea if it actually is listed as such a long season elsewhere. I'm going from what would seem to me to be a Primary Source, the Network that carried the show.) --VikÞor | Talk 20:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is in fact an 8th season, but no 9th season, the link shown above is not updated to the latest episode, but if u look at this link (http://www.tbs.com/video/index.jsp?cid=301768), you'll see the series finale "All's Well" and it says "Season 8, Episode 642". So we can keep the season 8 page, but not the season 9 page. --Since8-12 (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - There's no actual content now (the nominator blanked it out) but the original article appears to be a hoax [8] or at least grossly inaccurate. Besides, even if it was a well formed article for a future season, it's TOOSOON. Shadowjams (talk) 05:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn with no delete !votes. Rlendog (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Perry's House of Payne (Season 8)

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

Why the page should be deleted Since8-12 (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a page for a season of Tyler Perry's House of Payne that doesn't exist. --Since8-12 (talk) 19:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Cleanup: The TBS website seems to indicate that there are at least 8 seasons. ( http://www.tbs.com/stories/story/0,,112036,00.html ) as opposed to IMDb which lists 7 (with the extra long 7th season). Comparing the titles to what is here in Wikipedia, it looks like what is now listed as Season 9 (also listed for Deletion) is not yet listed on the TBS site. Since IMDb seems to be disliked as a WP source, I wonder why the seasons go with that rather than the Networks website? Seems to me that this needs Cleanup rather than deletion. --VikÞor | Talk 20:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is in fact an 8th season, but no 9th season, the link shown above is not updated to the latest episode, but if u look at this link (http://www.tbs.com/video/index.jsp?cid=301768), you'll see the series finale "All's Well" and it says "Season 8, Episode 642". So we can keep the season 8 page, but not the season 9 page. --Since8-12 (talk) 21:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Revival - Now we need to remove it from AfD --Since8-12 (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Floyd bootleg recordings

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

This article is full of unreferenced content, or asserted by unreliable sources, such as : "According to the users of Rate Your Music, the bootleg [Animals Instincts] can be considered as one of the best bootlegs of all time." (where "best" is 18th, and assessed according to 3 users). How can we prove that half of these bootlegs were actually released, and that they're the definitive names of them? A few names like "Yeeshkul" have entered vaguely common parlance amongst fans, but most haven't. I think while the performances might be notable, the actual bootlegs aren't.

I've struggled to think of what to do with this and I think the best thing is to TNT it and start over - move the live performances into the existing touring articles (such as Dark Side of the Moon Tour), put the radio sessions in another article (the existence of which can be sourced from places like the BBC Peel Sessions archives), and put anything left behind (which shouldn't be much) in the main Pink Floyd article if it's not already there. Any references to specific bootlegs should only appear if it's reliably sourced.

Discuss! Ritchie333 (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 02:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe some sentences can be deleted in the article, but I don't see a reason why the whole article should be deleted. I will review the article and add some reliable sources. A separate article relating to the Pink Floyd bootlegs isn't unlogical since Pink Floyd was one of the most bootlegged artists of the seventies. If we can bring the article to an higher level by adding reliable sources, than this should be sufficient (for comparable articles see: Led Zeppelin bootleg recordings and Tangerine Dream bootleg recordings.Floydian Tree (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Floydian Tree's logic. I have edited the article a bit, mostly for redirects, but I'll try and source a lot of the info. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 20:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article includes too many detailed lists, making it too long, but as a nonFloydian I still find it interesting. If we delete it based on references missing, not many articles would exist. Improve it! 99.251.125.65 (talk) 13:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update Thanks to yeepsi for finding references. Just to be clear, my intention was only to delete the article and move the relevant content elsewhere. Anything that was reliably sourced would not be lost. However, to give you an idea of what problems we have - the names of the bootlegs don't match what I've seen eg: 17/9/69 is called "Complete Concertgebouw" whereas my copy was called "Timescape", 13/03/1972 I have as "Think Pink", 22/09/1972 is known to me as "Crackers", 09/05/1977 as "Plays the Animals". And there's no mention of Reserved. And that's just two minutes of looking at it! How might we resolve that lot? --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:28, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Some Pink Floyd bootlegs exist in several variations..." "...sometimes listeners have recorded different versions of the same performance at the same time." I think the earilest known incarnation is what is included in the list. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 13:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sabur Khan

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

After cleaning the article and believing the article could be wikified, I have realized that the article reads like a resumé rather than a biographical article. The sources never mention the subject aside from this reference which the subject wrote. As you can see from the page's history, the article has been trimmed multiple times. Additionally, the author seems to be a SPA, considering that this article is nearly all the user has edited. I received nothing useful with search engine results and Google News. I also want to mention that the author moved the AfC submission themselves to article space here after multiple declines. SwisterTwister talk 19:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the people who tried to "trim" the article (a polite way of saying "I tried to removed puffery from an article that was clearly written by someone with ties to the subject," I have to agree. I'm not sure there's any way to save the article. Queenmomcat (talk) 20:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe this article can be Wikified. The article was categorized well in Wikipedia and those categories reflects the fact that this article has its need in Wikipedia. It just needs further furnishing. Shah - Al - Mamun (talk) 07:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 02:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 02:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikify I agree the article has been written like a resumé and needs to be Wikified (if possible)! --Tito Dutta ✉ 13:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article reads like a CV even when it was heavily trimmed down, and now that someone has replaced a large amount of the original content its even worse. Of the 26 references, 1-7 are primary, 8 is blogspot (not reliable), 9 is a directory type site, 10 also blogspot, 11 doesn’t mention him from what I can see, 12 is primary, 13-15 are wiki articles (circular), 16-17 are primary, 18 is a broken link but from the url it seems to be primary and finally 19-26 are all primary sources. There is not one independent reliable reference and a Google search seems to show why, there aren’t any. This person is not notable and most of the article content is not relevant or suitable for an encyclopedia. At the very least it needs to very reduced to a stub and properly referenced per BLP guidelines. Sarahj2107 (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious spam — although in the article's favour, the North Korean-style self-glorification did provide some amusement. This is a person who is in desperate need of validation. --Teemu Leisti (talk) 07:56, 13 August 2012 (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 spam by Martijn Hoekstra (talk · contribs). CtP (t • c) 22:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Videoexplainers

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

Written like promotional copy, links to company website in body text, no citations, poor formatting, badly written. Speedyld8 (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as spam. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11. No reliable sources, no indication of notability, stuffed to the gills with puffery. --Ritchie333 (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam; tagged as such. CtP (t • c) 22:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Byram

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

Criteria for speedy deletion as it fails WP:Bio RM-Taylor (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no it does not meet criteria for speedy; but it does fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has now made his professional debut. Giant Snowman 16:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is valid and he started for Leeds United AFC against Shrewsbury Town today in the first round of the Cup see here http://www.leedsunited.com/news/20120811/united-cruise-to-cup-victory_2247585_2878205 and he also has a bio page on the official website here http://www.leedsunited.com/page/PlayerProfiles/0,,10273~61348,00.html. Seems to me this decision isn't so much Wikipedia related but more Football related considering who these 2 users support(Brighton and Bradford).

Sam Byram is also listed on the squad list here(In the midfield section)http://www.leedsunited.com/page/PlayerProfileIndex/0,,10273,00.html

86.15.195.205 (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - what a bizarre nomination. He's playing for a Championship team, and someone is proposing deletion? Don't get it ... Nfitz (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, he's not actually played in the Championship yet and only made his senior debut on 11 August, so it's not that bizarre. --Jimbo^[online] 23:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The boy is 18 years old and just made his debut in an official competition against a fully-pro team. He only made his debut today so what do you expect from the article, a huge bio. It is fine the way it is for now and I bet Leeds have a bio on there website to use. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 03:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate until he debuts in the Championship. Now he doesn't pass any notability guideline (no significant media coverage or appearance in a fully professional league), but he might later. – Kosm1 fent 07:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The player played in a League Cup tie on 11 August 2012, a first team competition, which I have always believed followed Wikipedia's guidelines, along with any player who plays in the FA Cup or Johnstone Paints Trophy. --Prof bed (talk) 10:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Because the Football League Cup is a competition restricted to members of the Football League, a fully professional league, appearances in it have for as long as I can remember counted as passing WP:NFOOTBALL and that guideline's predecessors. Mr Byram played the whole of a Football League Cup tie yesterday for a second-tier club. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - have played in a cup-tie between two teams from fully pro league, and consensus is that it passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Mentoz86 (talk) 23:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not sure how valid this is to the discussion but Sam Byram also recieved an article on a newspapers website here http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/sport/leeds-united/latest-whites-news/leeds-united-young-sam-is-the-man-for-starting-spot-gray-1-4828771 mostly praises his performance, and talks about the other players. This is a newspaper source anyway, obviously because hes only 18 hes not as well known as the other squad players but he's getting there with his talent! 86.15.195.205 (talk) 03:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep made professional debut and likely to feature a lot more this year after impressing pre season — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.114.225 (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep had made his pro-debut and, as stated above, an appearance in a League Cup tie between two pro teams marks him as notable (or has as far as I can remember).--Egghead06 (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has made his professional début for Leeds United's first team in a professional competition therefore he can be deemed to be a notable athlete/ sports person. IJA (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Poleon

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

Criteria for speedy deletion as it fails WP:Bio RM-Taylor (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Kosm1 fent 18:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – dunno about speedy deletion, but the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY; minimal media coverage and no appearance in a fully professional league. – Kosm1 fent 18:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no it does not meet criteria for speedy; but it does fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has now made his professional debut. Giant Snowman 16:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Poleon is an upcoming Youth player in the squad who was given a squad number and has played in every Pre Season friendly and played in the match today against Shrewsbury town in the first round of the cup see here http://www.leedsunited.com/news/20120811/united-cruise-to-cup-victory_2247585_2878205 these deletion requests seem malicious, these are youth players given first team contracts who have played 1 professional game so far. They don't deserve to have their pages removed.

Poleons website bio page here http://www.leedsunited.com/page/PlayerProfiles/0,,10273~61358,00.html still needs to be updated but was added today.

Also he listed in the squad list here(In the Striker section) http://www.leedsunited.com/page/PlayerProfileIndex/0,,10273,00.html 86.15.195.205 (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - what a bizarre nomination. He's playing for a Championship team, and someone is proposing deletion? Don't get it ... didn't he play in the league cup today? Nfitz (talk) 21:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that bizarre, plenty of players who are contracted to Championship clubs have passed through AfD - and he hasn't even played in the Football League yet. --Jimbo^[online] 22:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NFOOTY as he has played in a fully-pro tournament earlier today. --Jimbo^[online] 22:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yes he did play today in the Cup match, he should be either starting in some games, or on the bench for the foreseeable future, the lad has talent and a bright future at Leeds United.

His official twitter page too, which has almost 5000 followers, which isn't bad for an 18 year old footballer, see here http://twitter.com/MrPoleon

Hope I've provided enough information to prove that Dom Poleon is officially a Leeds United player, has played his first pro match for the club in the Cup, and will no doubt play many more, also information about his involvement in every pre season game, including his goals can be found on the official Leeds United website which I can link too if need be.

Another example being Poleon scoring for the first team in the game against Tavistock in pre season, see here http://www.leedsunited.com/news/20120723/united-hit-tavistock-for-six_2247585_2857883

Leave his page alone please, it follows Wikipedia guidelines. 86.15.195.205 (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Like I said in another AfD about Bryam, he is 18, just started professional football TODAY against a fully-pro team in an official competition. He wont have much information yet but will eventually. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 03:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The player played in a League Cup tie on 11 August 2012, and therefore his entry follows Wikipedia guidelines. --Prof bed (talk) 10:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Because the Football League Cup is a competition restricted to members of the Football League, a fully professional league, appearances in it have for as long as I can remember counted as passing WP:NFOOTBALL and that guideline's predecessors. Mr Poleon played in a Football League Cup tie yesterday for a second-tier club. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Passes WP: NFOOTBALL, as he has played in a fully-pro league, although there is a lack of reliable sources on him (and I trigged a spam filter by trying to add sources), but a {{blpsources}} tag would be more appropriate. Electric Catfish 15:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - have played in a cup-tie between two teams from fully pro league, and consensus is that it passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Mentoz86 (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep dont get this nomination has recently made his professional debut for championship club- certainly one to watch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.114.225 (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has made his professional début for Leeds United's first team in a professional competition therefore he can be deemed to be a notable athlete/ sports person. IJA (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2012 (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} 05:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic medals by teams

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

Article effectively constitutes WP:OR; there is no basis in reliable sources for grouping Olympic medals like this (the counts themselves require you to go through medals databases and add them up yourself to verify) and certainly not for applying a ranking to them as if to declare a winner. span style="color:blue;">Basement12 (T.C) 17:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Basement12. Article clearly looks like it contains original research. Wesley Mouse 17:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Basement12 and Wesley Mouse. Kraut Funding (talk) 07:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting, but pure WP:OR. Lugnuts (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JoeGazz84 ♦ 19:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete potentially infinityCurb Chain (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is more of a synthesis than outright OP. Bearian (talk) 21:27, 14 August 2012 (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 Ganesh Chaturthi#Eco friendly Ganesh Idols. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eco Friendly Lord Ganesha Idols

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

I am not sure if this deserves a separate article. More opinions needed. Anbu121 (talk me) 13:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ganesh Chaturthi.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 13:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Anbu121 (talk me) 13:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's nothing to merge. Coverage at Ganesh Chaturthi#Environmental impact is plenty adequate. --BDD (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect after merging content with Ganesh Chaturthi. Secret of success (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You cannot "delete after merging", as that makes the merged content WP:COPYVIO. Merge and redirect is what you want, I think? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Corrected. Secret of success (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its an important issue which comes up many times during the festival. [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] shows some signs of notability which is good enough to warrant an article. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 12:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you say that it warrants an article in this case? If it is related to the festival directly, it is better off in the festival's article. Secret of success (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - But given the amount of information available about it, and the current size of the main article, a article can be warranted. Do remember that we don't want the main article to go of-topic. Just a section and a {{main}} link to this article is just what it needs. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 16:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, virtually everything in the article duplicates content in a section of the festival article. Better to build it up there and spin out the section if necessary. --BDD (talk) 16:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cupcake Diaries

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

Non-notable series of books. No reviews in reliable sources that I can find. The review linked to in the article is of a completely different book with the same title. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a search and I could only find one lone review through Publishers Weekly for this series. It's a fairly new series, having launched just last year and series of this nature often take years to get any sort of big publicity... if they ever do, as (no offense to the writer or her fans) children's series of this nature are kind of seen as a dime a dozen. There's just too many of them to report on all of them. Anywho, there are no reliable sources to show this series has any notability. I'd suggest redirecting to the author, but she doesn't seem to have any sort of notability either. I'll be nominating her article (Coco Simon) for deletion shortly.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above - WP:TOOSOON just because the book received one review? (based on the source). I'm not sure how else this would be notable but I would like to see if it will be reviewed by other critics in the future. Bleubeatle (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first three books have been out since May 2011, with the next two being put out in November and December of 2011, so it's not like the books were released just last month. It's possible for the series to get more reviews, but right now the series has yet to really be noticed by the bigger reviewers (the ones we could use for sources) and papers. Sometimes they get instant media attention, other times they build up a slow following, getting the attention years later. Even the Magic Treehouse series initially suffered a bit from this back in the 90s. (We didn't have Wikipedia back then, but the premise is still the same.) However, most children's books of this nature never really get enough attention to where they'd be considered notable per Wikipedia guidelines and most tend to fade into oblivion on various bookstore shelves next to whatever the new series is that is being released. My reason for stating this is that since the series has not received any coverage beyond one lone Publisher's Weekly review, it's unlikely that the series will achieve enough notability to pass guidelines right now or anything in the very near enough future to where we could justify waiting for a while before deleting it. (Like how movie articles for films that will have a wide release in the next week or so will sometimes be spared.) I have no problem with someone wanting to copy this into their userspace, but this really is just too soon.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield Ladies FC

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

If the league they're in isn't notable, I doubt the team is. They also don't seem to have played at a high level in the past. Proposed deletion template was removed, but no reason given. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The league is notable and the teams existance can be found via the leagues web page here http://full-time.thefa.com/Index.do?league=388619 Topbanana66 (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And how many of the women's teams in that link have Wikipedia articles? I count only one other, AFC Wimbledon Ladies, as they have played at a higher level in the past. Plus, that isn't the league's website, it's the FA's record of that league's results. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correction the league website is here. What would you consider to be a reference in order to consider the club notable? Topbanana66 (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete:~~ The club has played in the FA Women's Cup apparently which would warrant notability but the club fails WP:GNG so deletion is the right action. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Okay I buy it. He has proven the clubs entry and for a club formed in 2009 it would be common sense to think that 4 references would be enough for now. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just bear in mind that if this one is kept then we have to redefine our notability criteria for women's football in England. If this article is kept, then every red link on this page has a right to turn blue. The cut-off point is generally accepted to be teams that have played at the FA Women's Premier League level. If this is kept it would set a precedent for a new threashold for women's football club notability in England. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why put red links on non-notable teams? Mentoz86 (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I didn't put them there. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 00:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is not appropiate Yes the club has played in the FA Women's Cup and during season 2011/12 played in FA Women's Cup on Sunday 23rd October 2011, 13th November 2011, and again on Sunday 11th December 2011 against MSA Ladies in the first round proper. If you look at the club's website you will see a list of their Fixtures & Results season 2011/12 and the scores from these FA cup matches. Pictures of the FA Women's Cup match against Oxford City on 13th November 2011 can be found here The club does not fail notability and deletion is not the right action Topbanana66 (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the independant reference links and articles, (especially the one containing the Womens FA cup matches) that have now been added to verify facts within the main article. The club meets notability WP:GNG and deletion in not appropiate Topbanana66 (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Have played in the national cup competition. User:Delusion23, I've never heard of a separate notability criteria for English women's teams in which only Premier League/WSL clubs are notable. Where did you get the idea that the "cut-off point" is there? Clavdia chauchat (talk) 12:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Over 270 clubs will play in the Women's FA Cup this year, yet there are only around 60 articles on women's football clubs in England (i.e. about the number that have ever played in WSL/Prem). It just seems like the criteria in the past has been a lot stricter than you suggest, or otherwise wouldn't all these clubs have articles? Maybe they should, but I'd like to see confirmation that this is the consensus before making 200 new stub articles. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you think this is (or ought to be) the consensus, isn't the onus on you to come up with something to demonstrate it? As far as I know, WP:FOOTY has never had separate notability guidelines for female players or clubs. The lack of articles is not down to notability criteria, it's down to a general lack of interest in women's football. Frankly the amount of women's clubs currently without articles is hugely embarrassing for the project! If you have the time or the inclination to start creating stub club articles I would support you, and I agree it would be best to start at Premier League level and work down. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Where does policy say that playing in the national cup gives notability? If people mean WP:FOOTYN, then I'd politely remind you that that is merely an essay which is not fit for purpose. GiantSnowman 13:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do we have an essay on notability when it's not fit for purpose? Mentoz86 (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where in WP:FOOTYN does it indicate that the essay provides notability guidelines for male players only? League Octopus (League Octopus 14:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Mentoz - I've lost track of the number of times we've tried to change it, only for the discussion to drift off with nothing happening. If I had the time I'd sort it out properly.
Octopus - it doesn't say anything about male/female players. Giant Snowman 15:07, 14 August 2012 (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 deleted CSD A7 No explanation of the subject's significance Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shekhar ghantala

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

Clearly unencyclopedic, looks like it belongs in userspace and I can't understand a thing the creator's trying to get across. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 15:47, 11 August 2012 (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 deleted by User:Moondyne. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paattithemovie

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

PROD removed. This is an article about an as yet unreleased film which has nothing to demonstrate notability. It could be notable later but it doesn't seem to be at the moment. DanielRigal (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2012 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 Eastleigh F.C. season

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

The cut-off point for individual articles on English club seasons is the Conference National. Vast majority of references are from Easleigh's own website. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not only below the traditional cut-off point at WP:FOOTY, but also fails GNG. Giant Snowman 13:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I dont understand what the problem is with keeping this. It is relevant to Eastleigh football club, I've written it so it is factual, rather than including any opinion, and to say the own club's website is not a reliable source of information for information on itself is puzzling to say the least. The whole point about wikipedia is to expand and provide people with information. It's not like this article is half started/finished.User:GrimReaper66 19:27, 12 August 2012 (GMT)
Keep - As there is a well-sourced prose, I was going to say that this article passes WP:NSEASONS, but that was before I read "Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues". However, giving the large number of season-statistics that is only a list of stats without any prose, I would rather want the football-project to get rid of those, then to get rid of season-articles on a club playing in the "wrong league". Mentoz86 (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I consider that we should show some flexibility in our decision-making in cases where well-referenced and informative work has been undertaken as in the case of this article. League Octopus (League Octopus 10:39, 17 August 2012 (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 Astral projection. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritwalker (Native)

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

This article is extremely problematic and, if not deleted, at least requires extensive revision. First, it is written as though objective; as far as I'm aware, no objective analysis has ever conclusively proven anything on this topic. Second, even if one had, this article wouldn't benefit from it - there has been no attempt whatsoever to cite, reference, or in any way back up the article with anything but the author's own opinion. And third, it seems to think that 'native' and 'indigenous' refer only to a population subset of early inhabitants of a single continent. If it is to be rewritten, I would advise that an expert on this culture recreate it as an objective history of the concept of spiritwalkers in Native American thought and list certain sources demonstrating how the concept is viewed, perhaps with links or comparisons with similar notions in other cultures. Unfortunately, I'm far from the expertise level required to do this, as I was mainly looking through these articles for research in the first place. Hope someone more knowledgeable than me picks it up! 12.228.191.2 (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC) - discussion page created on behalf of IP by Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've tried to clean up the text a little bit to make it less WP:POV. But it definitely still needs attention from an expert. Also because something about the layout of the original text suggest to me that it may be a WP:COPYVIO. -- BenTels (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Astral projection, unless someone can add a source or two. I expect I could fix it, but am too busy currently. K2709 (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. The concept is certainly notable, as seen by the large number of fiction and quasi-fiction books about it.[14] Unfortunately, this article is completely unreferenced and offhand I don't find reliable sources that could even be used. Maybe someday an anthropologist or a Native American expert with sources will write a proper article about this subject. But unless someone can do that now, this article should be dumped as unsourced and unverified. --MelanieN (talk) 01:59, 18 August 2012 (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. Keep arguments have failed to indicate how the album passes WP:NALBUMs, especially the part on unreleased material. There have yet to be any in-depth sources on this unreleased album, and those in the article are about the single. Should this be released it may be notable, but at this moment it isn't. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Matangi (album)

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

Too soon for creation of article on this forthcoming album. It has no confirmed release date (sources only use vague terms like "in the summer", "in the fall", or "later this year"), no confirmed tracks (there has been no confirmation that any of the individual tracks mentioned in the article will definitely be on this album) and no significant coverage (there has been a raft of brief mentions of "M.I.A. will be releasing a new album later this year" but that's about it......). Re-create when more is actually known for certain about the album -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because although information on this album is scarce, there is reliable and properly sourced information on some of the tracks here, and it forms a reasonable resource for information on a notable album that will be expanded upon as information is released. HorseloverFat (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of the tracks mentioned in this article are confirmed to actually be on the album AFAICS. So what we have is an article that basically says "there is an album coming out at an unknown point in the future, and it might contain these songs"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 12:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Today, M.I.A. stated on her Twitter account that the tracklist for the album is coming out tomorrow. [15] So at least that information will be released. QuasyBoy (talk) 00:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the image that M.I.A. posted: [16] via TwitPic, of the tracklist. However, a few of the words are hidden. QuasyBoy (talk) 22:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because though the full tracklisting hasn't been confirmed, 12 titles are known. It is well known that she is hoping for a 12/12/12 release date, even if this hasn't been confirmed.

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 15:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON, only just escaping the hammer but still not suitable for an article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, She tweeted that she would release the album in "DEC"(ember), there's an album title, and a track-list (somewhat). M.I.A. has always been subtle about pre-release information, so it'd be unnecessary to delete the article. SuperDopeBass (talk) 20:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Incubate album might come out later this year. So far the album has yielded a notable single and another one is on its way. Bleubeatle (talk) 02:32, 12 August 2012 (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} 01:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudocompetence

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

This term was invented by Petrūska Clarkson in her book The Achilles Syndrome. The article lays out Clarkson's definition of the term, and cites the book as its only source. "Pseudocompetence" gets quite a few hits on Google, but I think this is misleading. As described by the article, pseudocompetence is characterised by insecurity, lack of self-belief, etc., whereas most of the sources that turn up on Google (such as this one) are using the term to mean exactly the opposite; arrogance, feigned competence, refusal to acknowledge one's weakness, etc. Clarkson's definition never caught on, and therefore isn't notable. DoctorKubla (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The above appears to be correct - the only reliable sources that use this term aren't using Clarkson's definition. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable neologism. Nicely done page, for what it's worth — just not an encyclopedic topic. Perhaps userfication and integration into a new page on the book from which it comes (assuming multiple, serious reviews can be mustered) might be the best way to proceed. Carrite (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gamma Sigma Zeta

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable minor fraternity. Fails WP:GNG. Sourced only by WP:SELFPUB. GrapedApe (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable, and also promotional, and very probably a copyvio from their web site. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe this deletion is valid. This wiki has been up for years and is very much stable and the organization is notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.166.78.196 (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please feel free read WP:GNG and add multiple third party reliable sources to demonstrate notability.--GrapedApe (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:LONGTIME. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 14:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; there is nothing notable about this 12-year-old single-campus fraternity. Could be redirected to State University of New York at Cobleskill. --MelanieN (talk) 02:01, 18 August 2012 (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jean François Porchez

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence at all that the subject satisfies the notability guidelines. The two refs cited are a dead link and a page on the web site of one of Jean François Porchez's companies. (Also, that page does not even mention Porchez, except for the one sentence "In a couple of days, we will publish the first no-porchez typeface family".) External links include Twitter, FaceBook, a promotional video on YouTube, several web pages on several sites belonging to Porchez or his companies, a couple of pages that don't even mention Porchez, and just one page containing an interview with Porchez. That page is on a site (http://www.planete-typographie.com) which has the stated purpose of publicising typography and makers of type fonts. It does not seem to me to qualify as a reliable independent source, and in any case it is not sufficiently substantial coverage to establish notability on its own. My web searches have produced mainly more of the same kind of thing. (Note: A PROD was contested without any reason being given, by a single purpose account that is pretty certainly a sockpuppet of a blocked user.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but re-write. He is notable, but the links provided are not appropriate for an article. ~~Ebe 123~~ → report 11:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no indication shown of notability, no reliable sources. GregJackP Boomer! 13:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article badly needs proper sourcing but google scholar and google books provide scores of independent, non-trivial sources. His work with the new design of the sabon typeface and design of the typeface for La monde establish him as a notable type designer. freshacconci talktalk 19:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, but I looked at several of the hits from those two links, and found only brief mentions of him. Since you say that there are "scores" of independent, non-trivial sources, can you provide links to a few of them? If so, I will be glad to change my mind, but so far I haven't seen any. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2012 (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 (gossip) @ 11:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 14:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2012 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Newman (writer)

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure he meets GNG and seems to clearly fail WP:AUTHOR. The article seems to have been created by someone with a COI and the article definitely needs a re-write. Mattlore (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While WP:RUBBISH is not a reason to delete, there doesn't seem to be any notable works judging from the article itself; most lead to external sources and do not have an article on WP, possibly because they're not notable enough. A lot of the info isn't cited, though we may wish to wait for people to try to find sources and either remove the false information or put in sources. --User:Kris159 (talk | legacy) 12:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - conflict of interest, promotional and, most important, no independent sources that attest the subject's notability have been brought forward. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - COI, probably promotional. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 14:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per notability and COI concerns. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 03:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. gadfium 20:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'll leave it up to you guys to decide. Everything in the profile is accurate . I figured the writing of Connecting the Clouds - the history of the Internet in New Zealand was sufficient reason to have a paqe, or three New Zealand history books published by Penguin and another on the way? I'll rewrite the page if you like but I'm not big on self promotion. The idea was to have a reference point to keep a record of activites and achievement.Keith Newman 21:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Newman (talk • contribs)
Keep. I've done some cleanup of the article and added some references, and I think he meets notability criteria. In particular, the New Zealand Listener review [17] is important because the Listener's book reviews are widely read. [18] is substantial, but I had not heard of the Chrysalis Seed Trust before today. I am a little worried that I didn't find more reviews from mainstream sources.-gadfium 02:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Has done more than enough to meet WP:ANYBIO notability criteria. The awards listed are significant national awards. Newman is a regular interviewer on New Zealand's national radio and network programmes. He has also contributed in a significant way to articles and literature about the countries history. Finding corroborative evidence has proved easy on a simple Google search with many citations from National newspapers and media.NealeFamily (talk) 23:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)NealeFamily (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2012 (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 (speak) @ 11:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 14:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per passing WP:ANYBIO (per his awards) and WP:AUTHOR#3 as his works has been the subject of multiple independent articles and reviews. Cavarrone (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2012 (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 University Circle#Public Transportation. There is a general consensus that the level of coverage of this subject in the sources would not support having a separate article. Most are in favour of a merge, and the sources offered during the discussion would be enough to cite some of the currently uncited material, so a merge seems to be a reasonable solution. However, I would like to remind the participants that all merged material should be cited to a reliable source, as it must comply with Wikipedia's verifiability policy. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 17:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greenie Bus

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

Non notable university shuttle buses. Not a municipal transit system, these are campus shuttle buses. Article has no absolutely no evidence of notability: no reliable sources as required by WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Here, the only citation is a link rotted shuttle bus schedule. Even after previous AFD, which was closed as no consensus due to lack of !votes, no one has been able to demonstrate the existence of reliable sources. GrapedApe (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close - The first AfD was closed by an administrator less than 7 hours before the nom re-nominated this topic for AfD.[19] This is a blatant WP:POINT case. If the nom doesn't like the closing result of his AfD, he needs to take it to deletion review, not abuse the AfD process by an immediate re-nomination.--Oakshade (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- From the closure of the last AfD: "This discussion did not attract a lot of attention, and I feel that most of the arguments were fairly weak. Therefore, I don't think that it would be disruptive to renominate the article." - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - That was an improper assessment. The admin should've added more time to the AfD if they feel it "didn't attract a lot of attention."--Oakshade (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then you should address your concerns to the closing admin. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - In retrospect, relisting would have been a better option than the one I chose, but, I don't see why we should close this. I think building a consensus is what's important, so this discussion seems to be a good thing. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Mark Arsten's close was fine.--GrapedApe (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to University Circle#Public Transportation, the area served. Not notable enough for a stand-alone article but worth mentioning in the area's. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge and redirect (see below)'. There are no reliable sources cited, and reviewing several pages of Google search results for "greenie bus" yields almost nothing that did not originate with this Wikipedia article. As with User:Life of Riley and User:Whpq in the last AfD discussion, I could not find any potential source of citations. It's not that the article is simply new and unfinished -- the problem is that it is impossible for this article to be adequately improved, because coverage in reliable sources is either extremely limited or non-existent. Not sufficiently notable as a subject. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 16:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that I just spent twenty minutes searching hard for mentions of "Greenie Bus" in third-party sources, and came up totally empty. EBSCOhost, Google Scholar, Google Books, Google News, and Amazon all came up with no results. Yes, Google Books does have some books with mention of "Greenie Bus," but I can confirm that those books are just compilations of Wikipedia articles that include this article. Without citations, there is no verifiable information to merge into the University Circle article. As such, I'm changing my opinion to say that this article should clearly be deleted. The only argument that can be made against deletion, imo, is for an editor to find at least one reliable source to cite. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 18:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Searches for <"Case Western" "Greenie"> do turn up assorted University-based sources using the name, e.g.[20][21][22][23][24][25] Not saying this proves notability for a separate article, just that the system does appear to be called by that name. I lean toward the merge and redirect proposed above.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With the introduction of those citations, I can support merge and redirect as well. They don't measure up as sources to justify a full article, but they do allow for some information to be kept in the merge. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 22:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The bus service is described in more than one book. The worst case is that we'd merge into a section of a larger article such as University_Circle#Public_Transportation. Deletion is therefore not appropriate. Warden (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Described in more than one book" does not equal notability. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. Note also that notability is just a vague guideline which is trumped by our editing policy. Warden (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't count for notability if the books are compilations of Wikipedia articles.--GrapedApe (talk) 21:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not refer to books of that kind. DanielKlotz's searches above seem too specific, looking for an exact phrase. Warden (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All book references are either Wikipedia reprints or mere mentions in books about Case Western. WP:GNG requires "significant coverage" which means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. That standard is far from satisfied here.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the books discusses the livery of this service, which seems to be a particular feature of interest. My !vote stands. Warden (talk) 06:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which one is it? And even assuming that's a viable source, WP:N requires multiple sources, so what are the other ones?--GrapedApe (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple sources are not required in WP:N. "Expected" doesn't mean "required."--Oakshade (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources" Generally plural nouns means >1.--GrapedApe (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's plural so as not to restrict the number of sources to one. Using the affectation of an "s" to contradict the applicable wording - "multiple sources are generally expected" - to falsely mean "required" is just a silly example of WP:GAME. --Oakshade (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oakshade, would yoube agreeable to a merge and redirect outcome of this discussion? How about you, GrapedApe? -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 19:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the verifiable content is preserved, this doesn't need a standalone article and can be merged. --Oakshade (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything worth keeping. I mean, what would we merge, the bus schedule? The rest is original research unsupported by sources. Out of 14 thread responses, we still have no indication as to which book/books Warden is referring to.--GrapedApe (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what merging is; merging the content of one article into another. The consensus here seems to be to merge in addition to redirect. --Oakshade (talk) 23:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and I was saying that there's nothing worth merging. Should we merge the bus schedule?--GrapedApe (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're against merging, then you seem outside of consensus. You can try to build a consensus for your preference. --Oakshade (talk) 00:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD is still open, so consensus is developing. The real question is why you're impervious to my expertly argued arguments. Tell us, right now, exactly which of Greenie Bus you would merge. What text there is 1) cited to a reliable source and 2) worth preserving?--GrapedApe (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible for one or two of the defending editors to make improvements to the article? I feel puzzled by the vehement arguments that the article could be significantly improved, while the article itself remains unimproved. I will have an easier time supporting keeping an article that has been improved than one that merely hypothetically could be improved. I made a good-faith attempt at finding citable sources so that I could contribute to that improvement effort myself. Thank you. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 10:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The tiresome badgering and disruption of this process does not encourage editing. It seems especially obnoxious when you look at the sort of articles which the nominator creates himself: Ebenezer Covered Bridge, Jagoff, Pet House, Shorty's_Lunch. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Warden (talk) 13:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per above. While some sources verifying the basic information about the bus system exists, they are extremely limited in scope, being almost entirely comprised of small local coverage, mostly existing in actual University publications. Thus, a merge to the University Circle article seems like the most appropriate option. Rorshacma (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect according to Bushranger's suggestion above. This is an unimportant shuttle bus service of absolutely no interest outside the University Circle area of Cleveland, and really ought to be deleted, but I will support the consensus to merge. This is certainly not worth a separate article in Wikipedia. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 19:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect -I don't see what information that can be merged. -- Whpq (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:SK#1, WP:SK#2b, WP:SK#2c, with prejudice against speedy renomination.

SK1 The...nomination...fails to advance an argument for deletion

SK2 The nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption... For example:

...

b nominations which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption...

c making nominations of the same article with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected in a recently closed deletion discussion

Unscintillating (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Frankly, this is nonsense.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Frankly" means "in truth". "nonsense" means, "words or language having no meaning or conveying no intelligible ideas". The text claimed to be "nonsense" is from one of our deletion guidelines, and a deletion guideline is "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow..." Unscintillating (talk) 01:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Adding attribution to m-w.com. Unscintillating (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:Deletion policy,
*Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome.
Our deletion policy is "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." Unscintillating (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect No evidence of notability and fails WP:NOTDIR.--Charles (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2012 (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} 04:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OfficeFloor

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

This software doesn't appear to meet the general notability guideline. Searches on Google News, Books, and Scholar don't turn up anything promising. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced article lacking evidence of achieved notability. AllyD (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find evidence that this meets WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Gongshow ^Talk 08:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no indication of notability. I would also note that the current text fails WP:NOTTEXTBOOK and is close to WP:CSD#G11. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2012 (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 by Martijn Hoekstra (talk · contribs) as "A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject". (non-admin closure) Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 18:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Delude

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

A PROD tag was removed by the article's SPA creator without any improvement or the addition of any citations. I suspect this could have been speedied under db-bio but my understanding is that the removal of the PROD tag requires the article to be brought to AfD. This individual does not meet the GNG or the guideline for amateur athletes and I can find absolutely nothing in the way of reliable sources. Ubelowme _U ^Me 13:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unsourced BLP. Should be speedied. Harry the Dog WOOF 13:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer! 13:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:A7 as a vanity page. No claims of importance as a known athlete. Research turns up the same lack of results. Does not meet General Notability Guidelines or WP:BLP or WP:ATH. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unsourced and unverifiable BLP. My search for sources came up empty. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, tagged. No claim to notability. Hairhorn (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2012 (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 Humayun Akhtar Khan. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Blueprint for Pakistan’s Economic Revival

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

A short article on a run of the mill book that does not indicate any importance. Fails WP:BK Harry the Dog WOOF 12:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As it stands, no indication of notability. The author of the book has an article, so this info could be put in there without losing anything, leaving the title as a redirect. Peridon (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable anthologyCurb Chain (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Peridon. Bearian (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2012 (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 blatant hoax. Orlady (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

City of Forest Park Schools

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

This school district does not appear to exist. Bleaney (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--VikÞor | Talk 13:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2012 (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 hoax (G3). The real school district is Winton Woods City School District.

Leaf Links City Schools

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

This school district does not appear to exist. Bleaney (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing on Google about it, doesn't appear to exist. JoeGazz84 ♦ 19:48, 12 August 2012 (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. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gates of Vienna

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

not notable Jason from nyc (talk) 11:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reason's the blog's author's wikipedia page was recently deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward S. May. Both author and his works are not notable and fail WP:GNG guidelines. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable Islamophobic blog that has received significant mainstream media coverage[26]. The blog is notable independent of the May guy, it is written by other people than May (e.g. Fjordman). JonFlaune (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see any evidence of these "significant mainstream media coverage" - not in the article, and not in a Google search for "Gates of Vienna" + blog. 71.204.165.25 (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When the author's article was up for deletion, I tried very, very hard to find sources by searching both on him and on his blog. There simply isn't significant coverage out there. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There has been regular media coverage on this blog in Norway for a year, obviously related to it being a primary influence on Anders Behring Breivik. [27] [28] [29]. If the blog isn't independently notable, then I suggest a redirect to 2011 Norway attacks. JonFlaune (talk) 00:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The media coverage has been persistent but trivial. Redirects generally don't help a reader unless the redirected topic is discussed in the article; perhaps you could propose language that would discuss these blogs in the Breivik article? (Even so, not sure it would be good.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - let's not act as publicity agents for obscure websites Why would Wikipedia want to publicise such sites? I do no think it does. All the policy stuff I have read suggests that Wikipedia is not a suitable place to publicise/advertise non-notable people/businesses/products. The website is mentioned in some newspaper articles about a mad person who murdered lots of young people. Perhaps if the mad person had used lavatory paper made by Mr May that he bought over the internet, and the newspaper article had mentioned that, we should have an article May's lavatory paper? I do not think so. This kind of rubbish is mentioned in passing by newspaper articles to pad them out. Anders Breivik's spider web of hate, in The Guardian, 7 Sept 2011, is an example of that. The Guardian is not an entirely reliable source - they have a tendency to invent 'facts' to make stories more sensational.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If toilet paper were mentioned repeatedly as a factor in the rampage (perhaps Breivik thought it was too rough), then we could deal with it at that point. Others, such as SPLC have made their opinions known already. Ufwuct (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - If this obscure website is only notable in connection with Breivik, then it is not really notable. Breivik and his actions are notable. Any mention of this website that Wikipedia needs to have can be made in articles about Breivik and his actions.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG JoeGazz84 ♦ 19:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gates of Vienna guest-hosts some writings by other "notable" writers such as Fjordman and central to the anti-islamization community (or whatever you prefer to call it). Little Green Footballs notes Ned May (and Spencer and Geller) as his primary reason for (what appears to be) a nearly 180 degree change in his writings.[30] Continued coverage as related to Breivik as well. Ufwuct (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP - This blog made history last year. The Scythian 19:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the central websites of the Counterjihad movement. Has published many different writers, including Fjordman and Paul Weston. Involved in many conferences (especially publishing report of those conferncces). Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge into 2011 Norway attacks as it's only notable in that context. // Liftarn (talk)
Keep. There has been so much coverage and discussion about this website in mainstream media that notability seem clearly evidenced. __meco (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2012 (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 Dol Amroth. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Imrahil

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 17:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minor character - no indication given of external significance. GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 11:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dol Amroth which has potential of being expanded with real-life references. E.g. some spires in the Cascade Mountains have been named after peaks from Lord of the Rings, including one "Dol Amroth" [31]. De728631 (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable, being covered in detail in works such as The Complete Tolkien Companion and Tolkien: The Illustrated Encyclopaedia. Warden (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the topic is not covered in detail, the refs you found only contain trivial mentions.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like De's suggestion of a redirect to Dol Amroth (perhaps a selective merge); the character is not significant and you can tell in the plot summary because it's all trivial stuff, but although unimportant as a character he can be discussed with Tolkien's geography/history. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am in favour of keeping the article online on the grounds of WikiMedia's charter to (b) share information and (b) make information available to the masses. I think a debate about the merit of the article itself is not warranted, as long as it follows WikiMedia's guidelines and includes verifiable references. By debating the merit of the article, we are opening up a can of worms and possibly a debate with no end. The fact is that information was put online and, as long as at least one person finds it useful and it is within WikiMedia's guidelines, then it should not be subject to deletion. Arentol Gellor (talk) 09:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's the problem, this article doesn't follow Wikipedia's policies such as WP:NOTPLOT and general notability guideline. Articles don't just have to be verifiable, they have to be notable. Unfortunately for you, there are things which Wikipedia is not, such as an indiscriminate collection of information, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". That the information was "put online" and "is of interest for at least one person" is not a valid reason to circumvent Wikipedia's policies. On the contrary, debate on all article merit is entirely warranted, and "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia’s article guidelines and policies" (WP:AFDFORMAT). You don't give policy-based reasons to keep this article, so your comment is likely to be ignored.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Dol Amroth per users De728631 and Roscelese, no significant coverage can be found for the topic, which thus doesn't meet WP:GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Douglas (The Bold and the Beautiful)

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

A random character from a random soap opera. Creator has been blocked indefinitely for copyright violations; while I don't immediately see this as being copied from somewhere, it wouldn't surprise me if it is. But even if it's not, it certainly fails WP:GNG. We have lists of character articles for a reason. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indeed, I noticed the article earlier today and was wondering whether I should bring it here or PROD it. There were no attempts to demonstrate notability whatsoever, and the bulk of the article is just the unsourced story, not a single source.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The role isn't primary, and just because it is portrayed by Betty White, the character does not inherit her notability so it falls under WP:NN & WP:NOTINHERITED for it's contribution. The piece appears to be an insider description of events, and therefore is WP:COI & WP:SELFPUBLISH. Also, there is no proper sourcing via WP:SOURCES, yadda, yadda Яεñ99 (talk) 10:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Redirect to List of The Young and the Restless characters. Seems like the character stayed around the series for three years. I don't watch this TV show at all so I'm not sure if her character played a relevant role in the plot and how many episodes she appeared on. Perhaps adding her character to the list would help? Not completely sure. Bleubeatle (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought she was The Bold and the Beautiful? However, the redirect seems justifiable Яεñ99 (talk) 11:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As to her begin on the list, it would be up to editors there to decide if she meets whatever criteria they have. However, a redirect is unecessary, because no one is going to type "Ann Douglas (The Bold and the Beautiful)" into the search box. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, but they might type 'Ann Douglas', in which case the full title will come up. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

API Management

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

There are commercial entitites/vendors related references in this article that pose a question to the merits of it being a definitive impartial article at all. API management as a discipline goes back decades as it has been practiced. The notion of an API (Application Programming Interface) and management (the ability to manage who, what, when, how, why, and finally how often) are separate disciplines in their own right, and have their own articles. API management in the light of REST based applications or service invocations etcetera are a more narrowly focused notion of APIs. It discredits the various other methods of APIs and management that are available at large today - space based computing, asynchronous queuing, fire and forget broadcasting, in-memory /shared-memory calls etc.. lex lapax (talk) 09:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to IT Governance: The claims in this article are simply not true. API management is not a new concept, it's just IT Governance and SOA Governance following marketing hype into a new terminology phase (we seem to be using API now where things were called Web Services or RESTful Services before). -- BenTels (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO, WP:NOT#DICT and WP:PROMOTION: the article's subject is another buzzword that was attached to several preexisting aspects in order to make marketing the corresponding solutions easier. Though article is quite long, it barely passes WP:CSD#G1 criterion in section "Common tasks and required functionality", which makes apparently evident that the topic boils down to several aspects of web application development, with some of them being already in place before "Web 2.0" hype. Also note, that the article is quite wordy, but doesn't share much info; if rewritten in encyclopedic tone, it would be condensed to a single short paragraph. That said, the purpose of this article seems to be in describing the buzzword as having some real world significance (in fact it tries to show much more significance then there is) and consequently promote several companies (listed and linked at the bottom) as doing an important business. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#DICT and WP:PROMOTION. JoeGazz84 ♦ 19:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forrest Yoga

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

Previously speedily deleted twice. ~90% of references are by the own author. Well written puff piece which used references irrelevant to subject. One interview about the creator which could make the creator notable, but this yoga is not. Requesting WP:SALT. Curb Chain (talk) 08:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & SALT Obvious self-promotion piece; fails WP:SELFPUB. Of note it appears the inventor of "Forrest Yoga" also wrote the blog on HuffPost concerning her own involvement with "members of the 48th Fighter Wing (48 FW) of the USAF" which is clearly WP:COI, and for that matter completely unverifiable since no proper sourcing is listed for the internal military contacts for verification of participation, hence failing WP:SOURCES and becomes WP:NOTRELIABLE. All-in-all, with (2) prior speedy deletes and obvious issues with the sincerity of authorship, concur with request for WP:SALT. Яεñ99 (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excatcly. That huffing post piece is written BY her! It's not a reliable source.Curb Chain (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have added article from Colorado Military Armed services News piece to verify work with Military. Please let me know what else you would like me to change to improve this article. User:NerudaP — Nerudap (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please note that what differentiates Forrest yoga is that it focuses on Western lifestyles and originates in the US rather than elsewhere and that it does not focus on Indian traditions. Therefore, it is unique and noteworthy. I can remove Huff Post piece on Military if you wish. Pleae let me know how else to adjust article.

Thanks.User:NerudaP —Preceding undated comment added 01:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That Colorado Military Armed services News piece didn't discuss your yoga indepth. Please read up on our policies if you want to improve your article and note that if the topic is not notable (cf. WP:N) it should not be on wikiepdia so references that are tangentially related to the subject of the article will not be reason to keep it.Curb Chain (talk) 04:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A lengthy, in-depth article at the New York Times is kind of a presumption of notability right there. Add significant items at the Boston Globe, Miami Herald, Chicago Tribune, etc., and I have to wonder, how much more do we need before we acknowledge notability? --MelanieN (talk) 04:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This topic clearly passes WP:GNG per:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The articles redirect to advertisements, or "personal pieces" written by someone in the context Everyday living discussions and these are not stated in a neutral pro/con fashion and fail the WP:NPOV test. There is no scientific support that a "new or improved" form of anything exists, only personal statements, and since Wiki doesn't support original research the assertion that something new has been developed fails the WP:NOR test as well. Яεñ99 (talk) 11:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are NOT advertisements. They are staff-written articles in Reliable Sources. Whether or not there is any scientific support for this process or its claims is irrelevant; Wikipedia has lots of articles on things that have no scientific support (e.g. astrology) but are notable nevertheless. What is relevant is whether the system has been given substantial coverage in independent reliable sources - which it plainly has. --MelanieN (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though the motivations for exposure can be appreciated, when checking the links please note one dead-ends into an advertisement, one dead-ends into an archived article that cannot be reviewed, one from the HuffingtonPost is a blog entry and fails WP:NOTBLOG, and the others are interest pieces, etc that demonstrate an inclination for media exposure - per WP:FORUM, Wikipedia is not a repository for inventions, research, or essays. Wikipedia is not a forum for WP:SOAPBOX addressing advocacy, opinions, or self-promotion. Also, Wikipedia is not just a collection of links, and many of the added "references" and suppositions provide little or no additional support & fail the WP:LINKFARM test and do not contribute to encyclopedic content. Again, please note the very introductory sentence Forrest Yoga is a modern yoga style created by and named for Ana T. Forrest fails the WP:NOR test boldly, and due to her own authorship as demonstrated in the above comments, the article is also a primary WP:COI source. Яεñ99 (talk) 04:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are apparently talking about two different things. You are talking about the sources provided in the article; Northamerica and I are talking about AVAILABLE sources which we found in a search. The question for a deletion discussion is not about how the article is written; it is about whether the subject of the article is notable, regardless of whether that notability is currently reflected in the article. If I have time later I will see if I can add some of those newly cited Reliable Sources to the article; but whether or not they are added, they exist, and they demonstrate notability by providing significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Military section and Huff Post after review of your comments. Inside Wikipedia, there are at least two styles-- Jivamukti (with one person as founder) and Bikram (again, one person as founder) which are presented as modern yoga disciplines. The central question seems to be that if there is one person as a founder of a discipline, is it self-promotion for that person to discuss her work or is it a discussion of a notable new practice? That's where the reliable sources seem to weigh in on the side of Forrest Yoga. Also, it does not seem right to load the burden of earlier postings on FOrrest Yoga that were deleted onto this current entry. Thank you so much for helping to improve this entry. User talk: Nerudap —Preceding undated comment added 15:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We could also add Iyengar Yoga to that list. Morganfitzp (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop editing the article in an attempt to make the article most appeal to all critics in an attempt to save the article from deletion. Please take a look at our protocol as deleting information without good reason is not helpful.Curb Chain (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Curb Chain on this: We're here to discuss whether or not an article should be kept, not change it in hopes to make it keepable. Morganfitzp (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree. Changing an article while it is under discussion, to improve it and make it more evident that it is a "keeper," is absolutely in line with Wikipedia tradition. Please see WP:HEY. See also Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron. And please take another look at the article now that I have rewritten it. --MelanieN (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm don't completely disagree with MelanieN, I just agree with Curb Chain on this point. The article may have been "cleaned up," but now it's missing a lot of things that make this style of yoga distinctive from other styles, like Basic Moves and Native Medicine, (cf: Universal Principles of Alignment and Shiva-Shakti Tantra in Anusara Yoga). It's just moving closer to being a stub rather than a good article. Morganfitzp (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "basic moves" section because it seemed to me to be an example of WP:NOTHOWTO. Are such detailed instructions normally included in articles about yoga? I also deleted the "Rainbow Hoop" stuff about a native American healer, because it was self-referenced and seemed more promotional than informative. Again, is it usual to include lengthy self-referenced links to native medicine in such articles? I am really asking; I am not an expert in yoga or on Wikipedia policy about yoga. Mainly, I wanted to emphasize the content that is Reliably Sourced and decrease the article's dependence on self-referential citations. These changes seemed to me to bring the article closer to general Wikipedia guidelines, but anyone who thinks otherwise is welcome to restore the relevant sections. --MelanieN (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Recognized by North America's foremost publication on yoga, Yoga Journal in their [Guide to American Yoga Styles. http://www.yogajournal.com/lifestyle/2984] Don't like the sources? Swap in-credible sources for more credible sources. Don't like the subject matter? Well, Wikipedia is not here to please, it's here as a resource for people to write about things that exist in our universe. Forrest Yoga is just one of those things that exists. Morganfitzp (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This link you give does not discuss the yoga indepth. None of those yogas in that list (the reference that you gave) is notable without on-its-own, indepth coverage.Curb Chain (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How in-depth is in-depth? There are few books like Light On Yoga out there (Mr. Iyengar's tome that defined the system he named after himself) to validate the many popular styles of yoga that exist in the world. Other articles on Wikipedia—articles about rock bands for example—have little more than a few blurbs from online journals and fanzines to back them up. There are other sources too: Where rock bands have concerts, yoga styles have classes. Where rock bands have albums, yoga teachers make DVDs and write books to codify their styles. Curb Chain, if you really want Wikipedia to be a place where only the most well-known things are valued and allowed webspace, you have your work cut out for you—Wikipedia is full of articles about musicians who will never chart on Billboard's Top 40. Morganfitzp (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --MelanieN (talk) 01:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, all, take another look. I just did a pretty brutal rewrite. I deleted a lot of the puffery, unencyclopedic material and how-to stuff per WP:NOT, and I added three external Reliable Source sources. More could be added. --MelanieN (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the shaky sources. When this debate settles down I'll work on getting those details back in with more reliable sources (but also note that "reliable" sources get things wrong too—the Houston Chronicle said that Ana Forrest was based in CAlifornia when she actually lives on an island off the coast of Washington). Morganfitzp (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where she LIVES may be less relevant than where her clinic/studio/headquarters/whatever is. Besides the "California" references in the Houston Chronicle, multiple online sources suggest there is something called the Forrest Yoga Institute in Santa Monica, California. --MelanieN (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forrest Yoga website lists Carnation, Washington as its headquarters. She lives near there, not California. Morganfitzp (talk) 02:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You did a better job than I did of searching that website, then; I spent quite a while looking for a location and couldn't find one. In any case, it is not necessary to list a location if the available information is ambiguous, as it appears to be. --MelanieN (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. article provides context around a unique and distinctive style of yoga that is taught under the name Forrest Yoga in studios around the world. Forrest yoga is a recognized practice in the same way that Ashtanga or Iyengar are recognized.User talk:NerudaP —Preceding undated comment added 01:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ashtanga was never created by anyone. It is a style of yoga; specifically when asanas are done sequentially.Curb Chain (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course "ashtanga yoga" was coined and created by someone. There should be an entry for Forrest Yoga. It shouldn't be overly favorable (biased) but it is a form of yoga that more and more people are doing every day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anaterese (talk • contribs) 01:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC) — Anaterese (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

To echo Anaterese, the term "Ashtanga" was, at some point, created by someone, and first recorded by Patanjali in his Yoga Sutas (~2nd century BCE) as an "eight-limbed path" similar to Buddhism's Eightfold Path. The modern system called Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga was codified by K. Pattabhi Jois from sequences given to him by his teacher T. Krishnamacharya, and until the end of his life, Jois told his students that these were ancient sequences that remained unchanged for thousands of years. Recent research reveals that T. Krishnamacharya created these sequences himself from a mix of sun salutations, classical seated postures, and a Danish gymnastics regimen that was in vogue with the British Army (see Mark Singleton's 2010 book Yoga Body: The Origins of the Modern Posture Practice" and also the manual Primary Gymnastics from 1920), and while Jois stayed in Mysore and continued to teach Brahmin boys his series, Krishnamacharya moved on to teach somewhere and something else entirely. Ashtanga is a made-up style of yoga, as are its derivatives like Power Yoga and Vinyasa. To write about them here is not advertising or spam; it is information, always changing and in a constant state of open dialogue. Morganfitzp (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, can we stick to the point here? This discussion is about Forrest Yoga, not about Ashtanga. --MelanieN (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ashtanga yoga may historically been the A, B, C, D, Advanced C, Advanced D series, but the element that is common between them is that asanas need to be easily practiced from one into another. I've done yoga where the inhale is one asana, and the exhale is the next one in a series. The history of yoga as you pointed out is a sequence of asanas developed by K. Pattabhi Jois. But when I say ashtanga, this is simply a short way of saying vinyasa yoga.Curb Chain (talk) 05:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. All yoga is one yoga and at the same time many yogas. Patanjali wrote four padas and outlined the ashtanga (eight limbs) derived from many centuries of practitioners before him. In the many centuries since the meaning and purpose of these yogas—and the words describing them—has changed, branched out and pluralized. In the West, "Ashtanga" has come to mean Jois's system of asana, to classicists it is Patanjali's philosophy of which asana is but one part. Today we have the freedom to choose our yogas and to write about all these yogas here. Why censor that freedom and try to hide that people practice a modern form of yoga? Forrest, Jivamukti, Power, Bikram, Iyengar, Kripalu, Anusara, vinyasa—there's space for them all and more on Wikipedia. Morganfitzp (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tabitha King

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

Fails WP:GNG. Notability is not WP:INHERITED Curb Chain (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I fully agree that notability is not inherited, but Mrs King has been the subject of multiple independent and reliable sources, both interviews and reviews. She's not as overwhelmingly notable as King is, to be sure, but she is notable. Even if we ignore the sources that are from the Bangor paper and the two interviews at the end, there's still 11 sources left to show notability and I haven't even finished looking. I would, however, potentially recommend redirecting the two articles for the novels she's written to this page, as neither of the books are looking to be notable enough to have an article all to themselves. I'll see what I can find, as I haven't finished looking, but again- Tabitha King is most assuredly notable. If you're looking for reviews that only mention her and never mention her husband, well... you're not going to find them. At some point her husband is always going to be mentioned, just as Michelle Obama is always going to be mentioned in relation to her husband. However there are reviews and interviews that focus predominantly on her.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTINHERITED clearly. Also, suggesting WP:ILIKEIT, WP:PLEASEDONT, or WP:Clearly notable are not valid arguments for retention. The author must have made significant, notable, personal contributions to the field. Mrs. King is pretty much WP:NN except for the association with her husband's fame Яεñ99 (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, I hate Mrs King's writing. I very much think she's untalented and boring as a whole, but my opinion of her writing has no weight here. However, when you have people reviewing her books and doing interviews that write for Time magazine, the Los Angeles Times, the Salt Lake Tribune, Chigago Tribune, and other publications, I have to ask what more is needed to pass notability guidelines. As far as WP:AUTHOR goes, the author has to fit within one of the following guidelines: (the last one is for academics so I didn't bother with that one)

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

She doesn't have to fit all of the guidelines, she just has to fit into one of them and King's overall work has received multiple independent reviews. She has also received news coverage that is about her. Not her husband, not her children, but her. At some point her husband is mentioned, but the interviews and articles are predominantly about her. We can't write off an entire article because she's married to a famous author. As far as sources go, I've gone out of my way to avoid as many as possible that mention her husband. Some mention is to be expected in these, but I've added sources (such as two book mentions) that have no mention of Stephen King at all. She passes notability guidelines because her work as a whole has been the subject of multiple independent and reliable reviews and interviews.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with Tokyogirl79; admittedly she does not have the notability of her husband, and I fully agree it is not inherited, but there is enough here in the way of reliable sources (and available online) to retain this regardless of who her husband is. Ubelowme _U ^Me 12:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while she is indeed married to an extremely notable writer, we need not to let happen what I've seen happen in some sporting AfDs where a minor standard gets waved around as failed while WP:GNG sits crying in the corner because it's been forgotten. Notability is indeeed not inherited but if somebody meets the WP:GNG, which this person does, any concerns about inheritance are irrelevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This person passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Examples include: [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this person has third-party reviews of books, etc., so is clearly notable enough for a Wikipedai article. JoshuSasori (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG. Cavarrone (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MiMi London

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

Article about a non-notable clothing retailer. Almost all Google hits are for an unrelated Los Angeles furniture store with the same name, and the website listed in the article is currently inactive. The page is currently written like an advertisement, and the article was created by a user bearing the same username as the retailer.--Tdl1060 (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to written by the entity itself, and falls under WP:SELFPUB, WP:NPOV & WP:ABOUTSELF - the article appears to be a promotion piece and seeks self-exposure. Distinct lack of reliable, cited sources and lands squarely in WP:QS. Ren99 (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No notability per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2012 (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. (Non-admin closure). Till 13:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Film applicator

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

Unencyclopedic concept. The page is a promotion for the company whose web page is the only reference. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the nubbin of what could grow in to a perfectly fine article. Google Books gives thousands of hits so it's not a proprietary thing to one company only. We need more coverage of real-world concerns in general and manufacturing technology in particular. The general problem of coating things is fundamental to a lot of industries. Unless this duplicates some other article, it should probalby stay. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ The article is short on the balls it needs in the way of WP:SOURCES. If the author, or any other concerned party so chooses, we can consider the idea of; "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." Well, the article is already tagged, and in the meantime there are roughly another 5 days while we discuss it... Яεñ99 (talk) 11:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The testing of films and coatings is notable — see Basics of Coating Technology, for example. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 07:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In a bold move, I struck through my "Delete" because quite frankly the information is useful, however WP:IMPERFECT the format may be Яεñ99 (talk) 11:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep No clear justification given for deletion (see WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC). ---Kvng (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—That's a reasonable point, although I will say that that's an essay rather than a policy. Nevertheless, it being promotional, whether or not you agree that it is, is a clear reason for deletion.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so what does "unencyclopedic" mean to you in this case? A promotional article on a notable subject should be tagged/fixed, not deleted. --Kvng (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. My mistake.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:59, 14 August 2012 (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. No consensus between keeping and incubating, but there seems to be a consensus not to delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberpunk (video game)

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

Recently announced video game, but unfortunately video games get cancelled all the time, and per WP:TOSOON we shouldn't have an article yet. Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lots and lots of coverage already: [37]. Also, Category:Cancelled video games. --Niemti (talk) 05:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOSOON makes no mention of video games, concentrating on films and biographies. It would seem that it's up to a rather large amount of interpretation. There's every reason to think that the game will be completed at a future date, given that CD Projekt RED has dedicated developers and assets from previous projects to the title, have been working on it for "some time", already have the engine created (same engine as The Witcher 2), and have the creator of the pen-and-paper series on board as as collaborator for writing. If it does get cancelled, it can be tossed into the cancelled (though that's very unlikely given the dedication of the company involved) games category. :) --MusicaleCA (talk) 05:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just create the article when the game is coming out? Wikipedia has no deadline. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*shrug* I figured it'd be good to have a page so fans of CDPR who're watching this release could find something on wikipedia and by finding it, be encouraged to contribute to it as news is available. Point was to get the ball rolling...so to speak. :) --MusicaleCA (talk) 04:29, 15 August 2012 (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) 17:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, maybe merge to CD Projekt - While personally I'd have waited, a game announced by a major publisher is likely going to remain notable even if it is cancelled. There's sufficient sources to talk about the game in depth (Google news: [38]) though again, were it me, most of that could go into CD Projekt's article. However, deleting a noted project announcement just because of the chance it might be cancelled is not good form. --MASEM (t) 18:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Merge/incubate/redirect for the time being if you wish, but from the coverage available it would be notable enough for an article even if it got cancelled today. In any case, nothing to delete here — Frankie (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Deleting an article on the premise that the developers might cancel the project is simply unreasonable; there is significant coverage for the article in Forbes, Edge Magazine, and PC Gamer. Mephistophelian (talk) 12:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Incubate - seems to be WP:TOOSOON - all we have is "X is working on Y which should do Z and might be called A". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:56, 18 August 2012 (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. It's not quite a test page, but it so riddled with speculation and original research that it would not survive this discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 04:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Earth quake weather

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

Appears to be purely original research in violation of WP:NOR. It didn't seem to meet any of the criteria at WP:CSD. CapitalSasha ~ talk 04:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another author tagged it for CSD as a test page, so maybe it falls under that category. CapitalSasha ~ talk 04:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, per author. GregJackP Boomer! 04:32, 11 August 2012 (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. Even the sole "Keep" vote is advocating a complete rewrite, and the existing vanispamcruftisement won't be useful in that endeavour. I'm happy to userify if anyone really wants it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rodger Morrison

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

Appears to be self-promotional; all sources are primary, not seeing any evidence of WP:PROF (eminent in his particular field, etc). Bios like these used to be picked up by WP:SPEEDY, but if a more competent than average creator develops it, they slip by.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pure weapons-grade vanispamcruftisement lacking any WP:RS coverage ... all of the "citations" are references to the subject's published works ... article created and fluffed-up by a single-purpose account with blatant WP:COI issues. Happy Editing! — 71.166.139.215 (talk · contribs) _{16:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)}[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His citation counts are too low for WP:PROF#C1 and what else is there? There's a lot of fluff and trivia in the article but I don't see anything that would speak to his notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP & REWRITE so that it sounds less like a resume/PR-one-sheet.

i've done some basic research & while he's not certainly 'famous' in the general sense, but he's an expert in his field.

professionally published author (meaning it's not just 'vanity press' stuff) of multiple articles & books in his field of study, phd & assistant prof of MIS (Management information systems) at troy university [39].

it's a pain in the ass googling him because he's got such a common name & because google includes "roger" along with "rodger", but once you get a few pages deep (http:/ /www.google.ca/search?sourceid=chrome&client=ubuntu&channel=cs&ie=UTF-8&q=Management+Information+Systems#hl=en&client=ubuntu&hs=OL&channel=cs&sclient=psy-ab&q=Management+Information+Systems+rodger+morrison&oq=Management+Information+Systems+rodger+morrison&gs_l=serp.3...685.2261.0.3098.16.9.0.0.0.0.309.1595.1j5j2j1.9.0...0.0...1c.hMvnSHywMKA&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=b76cc405a8f5df12&biw=1278&bih=850 , "management information systems rodger morrison") his name turns up a lot in academic journals, articles, & references (www.aabri.com/manuscripts/11997.pdf for example).

it may seen dreary & unintersting to those of us not fascinated by MIS & related matters, but within his academic field he appears to be a legitimate & notable expert. this article certainly meets the same standard of notability as numerous other bio-articles about academics in other, more interesting fields of study...

granted that the piece is badly-written for an encyclopedic article, it's still worth salvaging.

Lx 121 (talk) 01:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

by the way: i'm sorry that the google search link is long, ugly & non-functional, but some eeeeediot has decided that google belongs on the wikimedia spamblock-filter list... -__- Lx 121 (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having published academic papers in itself doesn't meet WP:PROF. Still not seeing how he is particularly notable in this field. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok, try thinking of it this way: you do the research & make a list of the top 25 people currently in his field (management information systems); i'll let you define the terms of the ranking-system, but the defining criteria should be included with the results. if you do it fairly, & he's not on the list, i shall concede the point. xD Lx 121 (talk) 02:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2013 World Rally Championship season

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

It's too soon for this page to be created, and not nearly enough content to justify its existed. There is no final calendar for the season (and no major changes expected), and the team and driver table has almost no content. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 03:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Mid-summer is when the following season's racing seasons start getting serious discussion and consideration; while it might be a little early, WP:COMMONSENSE suggests that retaining the information, which would only need to be restored in about a month, is logical. In addition - although it's not explicitly stated, it's implied - this isn't crystal balling as "the event is notable and almost certain to take place" (CBALL #1). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Given the troubles and the uncertainty that the WRC has faced, one could reasonably make a case for it being less than certain that the season will take place at all. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - Delete If it is not absolutely certain that this event will occur, then the speculation that "it will" automatically makes it WP:CRYSTALBALL and a deletion candidate. You can't wonder if an event will occur and not resort to conjecture. Just because a "proposed" event may occur, and in this case makes it WP:IKNOWIT or WP:ILIKEIT, these descriptors mean very little to everyone else outside the loop and reinforce the deletion suggestion. Ren99 (talk) 07:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:CRYSTAL which states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Lugnuts (talk) 08:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Noted from above: Given the troubles and the uncertainty that the WRC has faced, one could reasonably make a case for it being less than certain that the season will take place at all. We would really have to have confidence that the events will occur before scheduling and including them in encyclopedic format. We face the WP:WAX issue of "X happened, therefore Y must be occurring as well." There is no guarantee that X season (2012) will result in Y season (2013) Once they finalize the events, participants, and scheduling, then you have a point for inclusion. Яεñ99 (talk) 10:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep since previous seasons are on WikiPedia. If the 2013 season doesn't pan out, it seems that failure itself might be notable enough to base the article around? Maybe mention in either this article or the main World Rally Championship page some of the troubles facing this season? --VikÞor | Talk 12:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly relevant re: survival of the WRC. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article points out the there is no sponsor currently, and that the organization is "poised" to have another sponsor soon. However, horseshoes and hand grenades being what they are, until something lands in the "Yes" category, we have to conclude that "No" is just as likely. In the event of two answers, it is not prudent to announce something that may never occur. Sort of like; "Men land on Mars!"...sure, we are sort of poised to do that one day, but will it ever happen? And should we wiki about it until it does just because WP:ILIKEIT? Яεñ99 (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith and do not ascribe keep !votes to WP:ILIKEIT. Thank you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bagley

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

Notability not shown in article. Refs provided either don't mention him at all (3) or only list him as the author of a book or publication. Only 1 ref mentions him in a manner that would support notability, and it is a passing mention. Fails WP:PROF. GregJackP Boomer! 03:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More references to support notability are now added. Being the author and contributor of some ground breaking publications, e.g. The Cambridge History of Ancient China, undoubtedly suggests the authority of Bagley in the field of Chinese art history and archaeology (Pavise (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

If refs to reliable sources are added, I will withdraw my nomination. I couldn't find anything, but it could very well be due to the common name and the fact that I didn't go deep into the search results. GregJackP Boomer! 04:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Robert Bagley is a personage of certain degree of notability. I look forward to seeing you to withdraw the nomination. (Pavise (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Also I am courious why someone like Sawyer is granted a wiki page. (Pavise (talk) 08:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

No one is granted a wiki page, there is a page on "Sawyer" because someone bothered to create one. Hairhorn (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Full professor at Princeton goes a long way to passing wp:prof all on its own. Add on books for Harvard and Cornell, a book chapter for Cambridge, this isn't exactly a clear-cut delete. Would still appreciate some third party refs, though. Hairhorn (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise that I did not present my point clearly. I simply find its interesting that a man like Sawyer, who is certainly a scholar, but obviously much less notable, has a wiki entry without conspicuous debate. Why should the entry of Robert Bagley, a full professor at Princeton and a respected authority in the field of Chinese art history and archaeology, be controversial? (Pavise (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

There's no central force at work that decides one scholar is somehow more notable than another. Anyone can make a page, and anyone can nominate it for deletion, so the existence (or not) of other pages isn't all that relevant. Hairhorn (talk) 03:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we reach an agreement that it is appropriate to withdraw the nomination? (Pavise (talk) 04:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

AFDs normally run for a week and operate by consensus; I don't see an urgent need to close this one. Hairhorn (talk) 11:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - at this time I don't see a need to withdraw my nomination. Of the refs added, several were mere statements that Bagley authored a book, which does nothing towards establishing notability. Of the Chinese language cites, one was behind a paywall, but appeared from the summary to be acceptable, as did the other one. Please take a look at WP:PROF and see if you can find a reference that supports any of the criteria listed. How many times has his work been cited, and where (peer-reviewed journals and academic books are best)? Any major academic awards? Is he a member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association? Are any of his books used as textbooks at multiple universities? Does he hold a named chair appointment or "distinguished professor" appointment at Princeton? Has he been the chief editor at a major academic publication? At the current point, most of the refs a useless as far as establishing notability, and there is nothing in the prose to assert notability. Although being a professor at Princeton goes towards showing notability, it does not by itself (or with the books) establish it. I will also take a look at the Sawyer article - if it doesn't show notability, I'll either PROD or AFD it. GregJackP Boomer! 12:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. New references regarding 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. have been added. (Pavise (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Strong Keep -- full professor at Princeton; gobs of citations in JSTOR alone including five reviews of his books in substantial journals. More than enough for WP:PROF#C1. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Hegvald (talk) 06:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Hegvald (talk) 06:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The publications list shows he gets all the top commissions to write in English on Chinese ritual bronzes, an important area (and it would be nice to have some attention to that btw). Johnbod (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2012 (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} 01:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moongrace

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

A PHP framework article without any reference. I don't it has enough notability. –ebraminio^talk 12:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no reliable sources on topic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced, no indication of notability, created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found nothing to indicate notability. SL93 (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Finkelstein

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

Article on a painter. I don't see any assertion of notability here per WP:ARTIST; that Chaim Goldberg remembered this person does not imply notability. I also checked Google Books for "Samuel Finkelstein Artist" but nothing is turning up for an artist by that name. PROD was removed with no additional sources added. Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found several listings of his art work, including a museum where his work is on display today. He was a member of the Jewish and Polish art movement during his era. He died in a Nazi death camp, which I sourced. He's also included in a book of notable artists, which I cited. Article needs more work, but he appears to meet WP:ARTIST notability. (unsigned but by User:AuthorAuthor)

His death in a Nazi death camp is a tragedy but it was equally a tragedy for the six million other Jews who died in the Holocaust; that does not confer notability. As far as the added references: the ArtNet link has nothing about the artist except information that one of his paintings was sold; not even a basic biography; the ahice.net document references him once as an example of a realistic painter; ArtFacts.net has information about his place/location of birth and death and nothing else. The AskArt link has nothing. He may be mentioned in one of the books listed on Chaim Goldberg's site, but he isn't notable enough to list as one of the subjects of study (unlike other artists.) I'm sorry but I still don't see any evidence that he meets notability guidelines for artists. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Listed, shown painter. Just as his death at the hands of the Nazis isn't of itself reason for inclusion, neither is it a disqualifying factor. Wikipedia is better off with this piece than without it, bottom line. Carrite (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the 3rd interwar European Jewish artist article cited for deletion in 24 hours, with the same weak excuses for deletion. In all cases they WERE notable within the pre-war Jewish European artistic world. Irondome (talk) 01:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You kind of have to prove that, I think. Lack of notability through a lack of coverage in secondary sources as noted in WP:SOURCES is not a weak excuse. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, you will have to delete all references to an historical King Arthur on Wiki. There are no contemporary sources extant whatsoever. The point is that the well-recorded destruction of an entire ethnic group including its intelligensia and much of its records does not disprove Notability of a contemporary artist of note within his community. Irondome (talk) 02:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concurring with the nomination that the subject does not meet the criteria in WP:ARTIST. The references, including the Word.doc are listing and do not add any biographical information or support the requirements in WP:ARTIST. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see a number of references on GBooks and Google. Seems notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you cite some sources that are more than just a passion mention of his name, e.g. that meet the guidelines in WP:SOURCES? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article looking good now. Good potential Irondome (talk) 02:11, 16 August 2012 (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 move to ARC Theatre & Arts Centre, Stockton-on-Tees. WP:NAC close. Nom is happy with a rename and a slight change of topic and there appears to be agreement to do just that. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ARC, Stockton-on-Tees

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

Article that is possibly about an organization that seems not to be notable under WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Although the article actually seems to focus more on the building that houses the organization (which does not seem notable either). BenTels (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 04:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 04:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 04:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. JoeSnarl (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename and repurpose as ARC Theatre & Arts Centre, Stockton-on-Tees, so that the article is about the venue, not the organisation that runs it. Theatres are rare enough to warrant articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I reckon I could live with that. -- BenTels (talk) 12:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Agree with the rename Fraggle81 (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2012 (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. Withdrawn by nominator without any !votes opposing keep. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pelle Åkerlind

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

Unable to find sources that evidence notability under WP:GNG. What sources do exist (do a Google News Search) I wouldn't mind second options, they at first looked like possibly somewhat reliable blogs, but most of them were repeating/translating this, which appears to be a press release, and which only gives a passing mention. Akerlind has been in multiple bands so it's not clear what a good redirect target would be, but I wouldn't mind there being one if better sources aren't demonstrated. j⚛e decker ^talk 21:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 04:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 04:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets criterion 6 of MUSICBIO by being a member of 2 notable bands, Bloodbound and Morgana Lefay as confirmed by this. The reference has been added to the article. J04n(talk page) 21:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll buy that and withdraw, as (and I'd been confused about this), WP:RSN appears to consider Allmusic reliable. --j⚛e decker ^talk 21:49, 12 August 2012 (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. Nomination withdrawn by nominator with no deletion !votes. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Sang-Soon

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

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

Basically unsourced save for a un-Waybackable deadlink, I can't find reliable sources which discuss this artist at all. Kinda problematic, as there are, at first glance, apparent claims of notability (e.g., the prizes), but it's not immediately apparent to me which exhibitions are being referred to. ko.wiki lists four individuals with this name, none of them him, and attempts to search on the Hangul name here have proven problematic. However, language barriers are absolutely in play, and additional sources, as always, are welcome. j⚛e decker ^talk 16:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC) Withdrawn, see below.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain I found a copy of the Art Korea article. You can read it here. There are two full pages on Sang Soon, along with a list of his prizes and accomplishments. This makes me think there's probably more sources out there in Korean. Silver seren^C 04:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd actually be happy to withdraw on that source, it looks quite significant, which makes me think (as do you) that the article isn't a fabrication, and with those prizes being presumed verifiable eventually, there'd be enough sourcing one way or another. --j⚛e decker ^talk 04:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would be nice of you. :) And I agree. Silver seren^C 04:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cheers! --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:15, 17 August 2012 (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} 01:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdistan Hope Initiative

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

It isn't notable. I searched this article on Google and I founded only 36 result. Reality 06:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:21, 29 July 2012 (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 (post) @ 11:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:MADEUP. Going by their own site on Wordpress, it appears to be created by a couple of high school students; nothing to really call it an established youth organization. In any case, there's no coverage at all to meet the WP:GNG — Frankie (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2012 (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. WP:SOFTDELETE The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beaver Fleming

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

Non-notable skateboarder, I couldn't find any sources to establish notability aside from this news article. The only links I found are either videos or unreliable links. SwisterTwister talk 22:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:01, 11 August 2012 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fight Panthers

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

Non-notable college fight song. No evidence of notability under WP:N or WP:MUSIC. GrapedApe (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Georgia State Panthers, which is the parent article. As WP:NSONG states: "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article".--SGCM (talk) 06:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 12:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 12:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 12:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Article has three solid references. How much more notability are we looking for? It may not be Beethoven's 5th, but it looks to be eminently worthy of an article. --Bongwarrior (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The current article is relatively short, and can be merged to Georgia State Panthers. If the article was expanded, with a longer history section and a section on reception, there may be enough to warrant a separate article.--SGCM (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article has enough information - if there were some danger of the article becoming an unreferenced permastub, I would agree with a merge. But the article is already past that point, and shouldn't be required to meet any arbitrary length requirements. WP:GNG is easily met (and that's a higher bar than just meeting WP:MUSIC) so I say keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't length, but whether it can be expanded beyond what it is now. Is there really enough written coverage on the song for a separate article?--SGCM (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or redirect to relevant article about Georgia athletics) - The fight song is not particularly old (introduced after 2010) so it's not winning points for longevity. All three news sources are (1) local, and (2) relating to replacement of the previous song. The notability criteria tell us to compare something within its group -- e.g., "is "Fight Panthers" notable among college fight songs?" and I fear the answer is no, for now. Give it a plagiarism or copyright scandal, or a popular top-40 cover, or longevity, or an award, or anything else that we might think of that would create notability among fight songs. But if this one comes in, we may as well give an article to each and every fight song of a major university. --Lquilter (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I may be so bold — in my opinion we SHOULD have articles on every fight song for every major university. Wikipedia is not paper, we are not going to run out of electrons. Carrite (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not worried about the electrons -- I'm more worried about running out of editors that can adequately write, source, categorize, watch for vandalism, and maintain NPOV. Anyway, I have no problem having content about fight songs in Wikipedia's articles on the athletic programs for particular schools. But to have an individual article on a song, I'd like to see some indication that the song is notable within its class. --Lquilter (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Adequately sourced university "school song" for Georgia State. Passes GNG. School song articles have generally been kept in the past, and for good reason, I additionally note, as they are important parts of university and local culture. Carrite (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BOLTSS

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

The article just explains what the acronym stands for, so I'm going with Wikipedia is not a dictionary as my rationale. Not sure if this could go in Glossary of geography terms. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. A redirect to an entry on Witionary would be appropriate, as this term is quite popular, but it does not warrant its own wiki page. Zombifier^talk 07:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in favour of http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_BOLTSS_stand_for This is not a topic for an encylopedia, it is a jargon definition. The term is not used on any wiipedia page. It is not even at Wiktionary. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Batrachion

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

This mathematical term seems to be used essentially by a single author (Pickover) and by definition is just a fancy name for a doubly infinite sequence. The list of examples provided consists of ordinary sequences except for the Blancmange curve which clearly isn't "a function defined for integers" and therefore has no business in the list anyways. Moreover the article is dangerously close to a copyright violation of its sources. Pichpich (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no proper definition and no evidence that this is notable terminology anwyay. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article is about a specific mathematical term and is not unsourced. Notability is obvious. Novonium (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Preceding comment is by the author of the article. D.Lazard (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious? Why? Basically everyone in the math community would call this (and actually calls this) a doubly infinite sequence or, in the case of all correct examples you provided, a sequence. This is not a term in wide use by the mathematical community. Can you could explain how your definition differs from that of a doubly-infinite sequence? Pichpich (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable and even fringe: In the 5 first pages of Scholar Google, only one article in English about the mathematical notion, authored by Pickover, cited only by himself and one (?) Chinese people writing in Chinese (except for the abstract). Also a few articles in Chinese that I am unable to read. D.Lazard (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This article will leave any trained mathematician without prior knowledge, and more so any non-mathematician, in the dark as to what the topic is, aside from a broad classification. The intended meaning is evidently meant to be more specific than "a function over the integers", possibly with certain subjective properties. It is the very antithesis of "encyclopedic". — Quondum^☏ 21:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One trained mathematician left in the dark here! I've looked at all the given examples and can find no criteria that distinguishes these from what is essentially "white noise". Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above: I can't figure out what this article is trying to say. I've even published on some of the curves claimed to belong to this class. Perhaps there's some interesting relation or concept, but this is not it.linas (talk) 16:29, 17 August 2012 (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. Roughly 50/50 between Keep and Merge, but discussion on that can continue elsewhere if desired. A couple of renames have been suggested, these can likewise be further discussed and I don't see a consensus to enact any of them as a part of this AFD. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rainwater harvesting in the UK

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

This article consists of unreferenced, original research/personal opinion. — Fly by Night (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support deletion or else redirecting to Rainwater tanks. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 02:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion has changed I support 'merge per Colonel Warden's suggestion below. -- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 11:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~It's a legitimate topic, but the article does need to be cleaned up. I'd support a redirect to Rainwater harvesting.~~Changing to keep because of the recent article cleanup. However, I'd like to see it moved to Water conservation in the United Kingdom per my reason below.--SGCM (talk) 05:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Rainwater harvesting#United Kingdom which is the same topic. There doesn't seem to be much need for a split by country yet. Warden (talk) 07:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Improve. I've already gone ahead and added references, history, UK-specific details, etc. There's still a lot of unreferenced stuff which appears incorrect, so I'd encourage everyone to just go and fix it. Remove things, add things, do what you like. This subject is pretty easy to Google. You'll make Wikipedia better (and faster) if you stop with these Byzantine complaint processes and just be bold. -NorsemanII (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge per Colonel Warden. There really doesn't seem to be enough specific to UK to warrant separate page at this time.--VikÞor | Talk 02:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've now updated the article by adding even more UK-specific details to the history section, along with a picture of a 2nd-century rainwater collection tank in Northumberland. On the talk page, I've left plenty of references to the modern situation of rainwater harvesting in England if you'd like to contribute something about that. Be bold.-NorsemanII (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rainwater harvesting. Only the History section is UK specific and that can comfortably fit in Rainwater harvesting#United Kingdom. --Kvng (talk) 03:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've added a UK-specific Current status section to the article. Problem solved? I'm sure this is getting to sound like a broken record at this point, but, if the article still isn't good enough for you, be bold. -NorsemanII (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It has been sourced and you did a great job improving it, but I still think the scope of the article is too limited. What if the page was moved to Water conservation in the United Kingdom? I would support a similar move for Rainwater harvesting in Kerala and Water restrictions in Australia to Water conservation in Kerala and Water conservation in Australia, respectively.--SGCM (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Water conservation is a much broader topic considering all of the different ways it can be (and is) done. I'm actually quite surprised that there isn't such an article already. It would probably be appropriate to create that article and include a summary of this article on it. It might even be appropriate to include this entire article in it, assuming the water conservation article covers other forms of water conservation with about the same level of detail. As it is, I'd feel a bit confused to navigate to a page about water conservation in the UK and find a detailed description of nothing but rainwater harvesting, with all other topics ignored or only briefly mentioned. -NorsemanII (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that water conservation is a much broader topic. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've retracted my vote. It seems like the real issue is how to best organize articles around this general subject. I think this sort of discussion is out for scope for AfD and I've alerted the relevant Wikiprojects (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International Development) of the issue. --Kvng (talk) 22:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is well written, notable enough, and there is too much info for a merge into Rainwater harvesting. It would create a bit of geographical bias. There is a need for a Water in the United Kingdom article (see Category:Water in the United Kingdom) and this article would be summarised into it. It is annoying that there are sooo many gaps in the article hierarchy of WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It needs moving to Rainwater harvesting in the United Kingdom. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:45, 18 August 2012 (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. Will provide content for use on a new article upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of unreleased Usher songs

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

This article is an indiscriminate list of non-notable, unreleased songs. Till 08:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move page to List of songs recorded by Usher, including songs that were released. Simple. Statυs (talk) 09:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Currently there's no attempt to establish notability via reliable independent sources. I suspect that sources will exist for some of these recordings, but there's clearly work to be done. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move per status. providing somebody is prepared to put in the work. Otherwise delete, if there isn't a list of official releases for an artist then there is a de facto case that a list of unreleased songs should not exist. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete right now, with no issue of creating a redirect if the article List of songs recorded by Usher is created at a future point. Lugnuts (talk) 08:48, 11 August 2012 (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. Soft deletion owing to lack of discussion. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandi Huge

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

Unable to find reliable, independent secondary sources which provide in-depth coverage of this voice actor in order to evidence notability under WP:GNG. I'm not convinced the two roles listed, even if verified, rise to WP:ACTOR. j⚛e decker ^talk 14:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 15:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:47, 11 August 2012 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lal Khan

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

Delete Promotional article for a non-notable figure and self-published author. Most of the article is original research, the remainder is entirely self-sourced (marxist.com and newyouth.com are both run by Khan's organisation, the International Marxist Tendency). Previous AFD was withdrawn without any discussion having taken place. Downwoody (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 July 27. Snotbot t • c » 12:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added new sources, including the Hindustan Times, the Daily Times, and the World Socialist Web Site. That should qualify as multiple independent sources. 99.246.142.211 (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note Actually, the first article is not from the Hindustan Times but from something called "Radical Notes". It and the World Socialist Web Site do not meet Wikipedia standards for reliable sources. Downwoody (talk) 04:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article was originally published in the Hindustan Times and was republished on the Radical Notes blog. I'll remove the link to the blog if that makes it clearer. 99.246.142.211 (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Easy Keep - Passes WP:BASIC per [40],~~ Comment – [41], ~~[42].~~ Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note Lal Khan is a fairly common name in Pakistan. Of the three sources you cite the first and third refer to other Lal Khans, not the subject of this article. This Lal Khan fails WP:Politician. Downwoody (talk) 04:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Changed my above !vote to a comment per the information above. Thanks for the information. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More sources: [43] [44] (from The Tribune & Asian Age) 99.246.142.211 (talk) 07:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- These sources definitely refer to the subject of this article, who is the author of Partition - Can it be undone? and Pakistan’s Other Story 99.246.142.211 (talk) 07:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia isn't for free advertising. HappyHippo69 (talk) 22:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep – Appears to meet WP:BASIC per [45], [46], [47]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of properly independent sources. Guy (Help!) 07:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – How are the sources in my !vote above not independent? On the contrary, there appears to be an acceptable number of properly independent sources to for this person to meet WP:BASIC. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I belong to Pakistan and have been in touch with The Struggle for many years now. It felt sorry that the article on The Struggle has already been deleted and now article on Lal Khan is under discussion. To add to discussion I would say that Lal Khan is a well known person in Pakistan. He keeps on appearing on well watched TV channels every other day.[48][49][50][51][52]including the state TV channel owned by Pakistan Television Corporation [53]. He also writes a column on weekly basis in well read "Daily Times" [54][55][56][57]. He is author of many famous books including "Pakistan's Other Story" [58]. So this article must not be deleted without any reason as was the case of The Struggle.
Keep - meets WP:BASIC.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – New references about Lal Khan's political struggle, victimization by Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq extreme right wing regime and exile in Europe. The initial days of The Struggle magazine (the deleted article by Wikipedia) have also been mentioned. The article was published in a famous newspaper The Express Tribune.[59] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.153.70 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Lal Khan is the only theoritician who claimed that 1968-69 movement in Pakistan against Ayub Khan was actually a revolution. He is the only one in Pakistan who predicted and wrote book about collapse of USSR in 1988 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.40.127 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 16 August 2012 (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 It's a Wonderful Life. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zuzu Bailey

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

A minor character from It's a Wonderful Life. Yes, the character said a famous quote in the film, but aside from that, has very little real life notability. The entire article is just plot summary, and I'm finding no other sources that would allow this to include anything that shows any independant notability. Of the three sources already presented on the page, one is just an IMDB link, one is about the actress, not the character, and the third doesn't mention the character at all. Searching for other sources brings me nothing that aren't just other plot summaries, cast lists, or very trivial mentions. Per WP:NOTPLOT and WP:NFICT, fictional elements need some sort of indication of real life notability that is not just plot summary, and I have so far been unable to find anything that could help this. Rorshacma (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking at the GNews search above, there are PPV news items from The Daily Herald of 12-17-2000, The Spectator of 12-1-2006, and The St. Louis Post-Dispatch of 2-9-2001. Beyond those, there's Express.co.uk, New York Times, and Toronto Blade. I'll ping the nom and suggest he withdraw rather than needing to SNOW this in a day or two. Jclemens (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, reading the below comments, it's unfortunate that I appear to need to present more evidence to convince the nominator. Try a book containing the actress' recollections of the character, for instance. There's plenty of similar things listed in Books and Scholar. The revised nomination statement below simply doesn't address the fact that the GNG is met for the character, which is all that's required. Jclemens (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Er, that's a cookbook that the actresse wrote, using the character's name to market it. That's hardly any type of notable discussion about the character itself. As I said below, there are plenty of hits if you search the name, its just that all the reliable sources that are not merely plot summaries or quotation guides talk primarily about the character only in terms of what it meant to the actress and her life, and gives no real in depth discussion of the character itself aside from stating that she was a character in a beloved film, and that the actress that played her is known for it. Again, my issue is that all of this is stuff that, while relevent to the already existing article on the actress, does nothing to give any in depth discussion of the character herself. None of the sources that either I've found on my own or that you've brought up here would be able to really add anything to the article that wouldn't be better covered at Karolyn Grimes own page or the film's main page. The way it stands now, all that the sources we've found would allow for is for the article to consist only of plot summary, and then discussion about the actress' life after the role, which would be duplicative of what should be at her own article. And per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, there's no real reason to keep this as its own article when all the information in it is better covered elsewhere. In all seriousness, the character appeared in aproximately 6 minutes of a 130 minute long film. It takes some sources that demonstrate some real world importance and discussion to show why such a minor character meets the GNG and is notable enough to maintain an article seperate from the main It's a Wonderful Life page, and nothing we've found thus far demonstrates any information that is independently notable enough to not just be covered at either that page or Karolyn Grimes.Rorshacma (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I suppose I should have mentioned this in my nomination. I saw the articles you bring up in my initial search, however, I believe they are more about the actress who portrayed her, rather than the character, and we already have an article on the actress here: Karolyn Grimes. I felt those sources, which largely discuss the life of the actress since her role and the impact that role had on her life specifically, would certainly be appropriate to add to her own article to beef up its content, but did nothing to actually show why the actual character was notable. In short, I guess what I'm trying to say is that even though the actress may have become notable for playing the character, that does not automatically mean that the character has any notability of her own independent of the film that she comes from.

To go into a little more specific detail, since I have the time, the Express article doesn't talk about the character at all, aside from just stating that Karolyn Grimes played her. The rest of the article is largely composed of just the actress' recollections and opinions of the film, with no real relevent discussion of the character. The Toledo Blade article is largely just about the actress, rather than the character, discussing her life since the film. While it does discuss the impact the role has had on the life of the actress herself, and the fans she has because of it, that seems largely more appropriate for the actress' article. There is really no information that we could pull from this that could be included in this article, aside from just saying "The actress that portrayed Zuzu has become well known from the role and has used this role to market products and appearances", which, again, would be great to talk about in her own article, but is not really any sort of real world analysis of the character herself. The Times article is much of the same, where it talks about the actress' life and how the role affected her, but does not really go into any in depth discussion of the character herself outside of plot summary. The article even notes that the character herself was rather minor in the film, appearing in only 6 minutes of it. I can't say for certain about those articles hidden behind pay walls, but the little blurbs that are visible indicate that they are more of the same. So, basicaly, these articles establish notability for the actress, but not so much for the character, as they are not about the fictional element as much as they are about the person who portrayed it. Rorshacma (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To post a rebuttal, since at least one editor below seems to think that getting the last word matters: None of that matters. The role has received non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, so the GNG is met. The above arguments fail to address the fact that there are plenty of other potential sources, and I've just referenced a couple. Jclemens (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my argument is not that sources that mention the character's name don't exist, its that these sources do not reveal any relevent information about the character itself, rather than of the actress. And don't get me wrong, the soruces you found were great sources for the actress' article, and I added them to that article already. They just did not actually contain anything that could improve this article. And not to sound contrary or anything, but how exactly would one argue against "plenty of other potential sources" without specific examples? Would I have to go through and describe why every ghit that includes the character's name isn't a valid source? Because that's a rather tall order... You have to watch the film to put this in perspecive, but Zuzu was a minor character in the film. An extremely minor character. A character so minor to the point that she could have been removed from the script, and the plot of the movie would not have changed, aside from being a couple minutes shorter. The actress suddenly garnering news coverage because she suddenly begins a campaign to market herself with that role after a financial crisis (which is what the case behind the sudden glut of newspaper articles your found) makes an argument for her being notable, but notability is not inherited, and there really does not seem to be any real world analysis or discussion of the actual character in any meaningful way.Rorshacma (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The correct thing to do when presented with three independent reliable sources, in my opinion and as I advised on your talk page last week, is to withdraw the nomination. Your demands of those sources are inappropriately high--the character is a fairly minor one, with one quite memorable line, in an incredibly influential movie. Given NOTPAPER, it's perfectly OK to have an article on a notable fictional character that can't ever be made into an FA--not every article can, nor does every article that cannot be need to be merged. Jclemens (talk) 17:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I explained above why I do not agree that the sources you provided meet the requirements for the character's notability, thus why I am choosing to let a consensus occur rather than withdrawing the nomination, so I'll just leave it at that. If consensus agrees that you are right, I will happily abide by the decision, but I personally disagree strongly enough to refrain from withdrawing. And WP:AVOIDSPLIT is my rationale as to why this article is an unnecessary split. Even if the sources are deemed useful, they are not enough to actually build an article on that would be substantially different than information already present on more fleshed out pages, and neither of those pages are so long as to make this split necessary. Rorshacma (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being significant (more than a trivial mention) and about the article's topic are still WP:GNG criteria. If that's inappropriately high, then WP:GNG should be changed. Or this article deleted.Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Rorshacma made a good job of proving us that GNG is not met and likely never will be. As per the nominator's answers to source propositions, Jclemens' comments are invalidated.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nomination. WP:AVOIDSPLIT Not enough here (and doesn't seem to be possibility of enough) to have separate article on This CHARACTER.--VikÞor | Talk 02:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to It's a Wonderful Life - there is insufficient coverage about the character (as opposed to the actress who portayed her) tio justify a stand-alone article. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to It's a Wonderful Life: The character generates quite some hits on Google, but nothing that comes close to significant coverage. So WP:GNG seems quite far out of reach. -- BenTels (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not a notable spinout. As per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, we shouldn't create new articles on the same subject unless we can (at a minimum) WP:verify notability. No objection to creating a redirect afterwards. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2012 (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.