Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 August 8: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:00, 15 August 2011

< 7 August	9 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AH.9 Lynx crash

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

PRODded more than four years ago and contested with the old "deaths = notable" argument. However WP:EVENT could have been written for this article and it doesn't pass muster against WP:AIRCRASH either. YSSYguy (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. —YSSYguy (talk) 00:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —YSSYguy (talk) 00:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – not significant. Why do people include every damn crash?! Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 06:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant. Why do people try to delete every damn crash?! Lugnuts (talk) 07:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present). This article fails WP:AIRCRASH as the aircraft is under 5,700kg MTOW. Mjroots (talk) 11:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's already mentioned there, so there isn't really anything to merge; does it really need a redirect? The proposed target has no other such redirects to it. YSSYguy (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't need a redirect, the article can be deleted. Mjroots (talk) 06:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- it is listed elsewhere. Not significant.--Charles (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- appears to involve 1 Regiment AAC. I'm adding the data as a footnote in the AAC article. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present) while preserving the fancy index of aircraft crashes that someone's gone to a lot of touble to set up. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Nothing significant enough for an individual article; early coverable on the main Lynx one. Kyteto (talk) 17:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to be particularly notable for a stand-alone article, also note title is wrong (no such thing as a AH.9 Lynx so it is not really suitable for a re-direct if deleted and needs to be changed if kept. MilborneOne (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Incident does not appear notable enough to stand on its own, and (as already mentioned) it's already included in the List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present). Unless there is some other factor establishing notability here, I don't see a reason for this article. Richwales (talk · contribs) 01:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Fudurich

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

No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Just working on notable records isn't enough in my opinion, they need to get coverage about them, or win major awards for their work, not just the song winning awards. PROD removed by IP with no reason given, nor article improvement The-Pope (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PEOPLE. No sources at all in the article, and nothing suitable found in a Google search. Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't see any notable sources on Yahoo and Google. SwisterTwister talk 01:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Notability concerns have been refuted by those commenting. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Paradise

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

Does not appear to meet the requirements laid out at Wikipedia:Notability (video games). Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has the nom looked for sources? [1] [2] and 2 offline magazines [3]. Enough for WP:GNG. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 07:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep Multiple reliable magazine and website sources are available, notability isn't a problem here. Someone another 00:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G3: Blatant hoax Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Falkner

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

I think this is a hoax. For such an accomplished and extensive career, google searches under these names turn up precious little. The few movies I spot checked don't have any mention of this name on IMDB, nor does the title name or some other spellings show up in IMDB at all. Some of the claims, such as turning down roles for James Bond, suggest there'd be widespread coverage of this individual. However I'm not finding it.

Brand new user with this extensively developed wiki page is the first edit... if this is indeed a hoax perhaps we should be on the lookout for other, similar creations. Shadowjams (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as an obvious hoax. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as an obvious hoax. Vulcan's Forge (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax. Carrite (talk) 00:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you speak Polish?

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

Blog of questionable widespread notability. I don't believe coverage is significant enough to be notable. Shadowjams (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The single cited newspaper reference is no more than a brief mention in an editorial. Also, from reading said article and checking the page's history, it appears that the creator of the page is the owner of the blog. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - From my PROD, "I couldn't find any reliable sources". -- $Σ talk contribs$ 03:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable blog. Joe Chill (talk) 03:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no claim of notability, so... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability Naomib1996 (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TRIDEC

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

What is it about these 7th Framework projects? They never seem particularly useful but the article authors still think ikndependent refs are not needed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've flagged the COI given the original (now banned) account names. AllyD (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the UK participating institutions, so notable is this project that it returns a blank search on the University of Southampton website; and just this at Queen Mary and Westfield College. Achievements: "none to report yet". AllyD (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability in achievement etc., without which it is not even deserving of an upmerge into the Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development article. (Maybe these articles about projects that may or may not deliver some tangible outcome at some future point are akin to articles about unreleased albums, films or vapourware, that fall under WP:CRYSTAL?) AllyD (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable software. Joe Chill (talk) 03:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDY (sources are not independent of the subject, with the possible exception of the Spiegel article, which only makes a passing reference to the subject and is therefore no good as a source anyway). I couldn't find any other independent reliable sources in a Google search. Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Zolnierczyk

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

Rookie minor league hockey player who doesn't meet notability requirements per WP:NHOCKEY Johnblue52 (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yes, he quite obviously does not meet the requirements. That is not to stay he won't (very likely) meet them some day... Bobnorwal (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Being the Ivy League Player of the Year doesn't pass requirement 4 (Achieved preeminent honours... in a major collegiate hockey league)? --Izzygood (talk) 01:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy League Player of the Year would appear to pass WP:NHOCKEY criterion 4. Rlendog (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Ivy League doesn't really exist for ice hockey. The six members that do compete in hockey do it in the ECAC. Patken4 (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NCAA player of the year maybe, but just a conference? I wouldn't call that a pass on NHOCKEY. Either way, given nothing else can really be said about him except for his conviction due to a lack of RS coverage, I am strongly inclined to support deletion per WP:BLP. Reso lute 17:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Resolute, if it were player of the year for the NCAA itself. But not an individual conference. -DJSasso (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 01:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Schoolbags for Kids

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

Speedy A7 was successfully contested by the addition of references which, at first glance, sound like they come from reputable news outlets, except that they are merely press releases published as is by said outlets. Google News doesn't point to anything more promising. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - most of the independent coverage is in blogs, so far, but they appear to be notable blogs like DailyCandy and Inhabitots/Inhabitat.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - also Parade Magazine.--User talk:Makeitbetter3009
Keep. All the sources look reliable to me... Bobnorwal (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More than enough 3rd-party, reputable sources to merit inclusion of this company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.78.194 (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck above !vote, passes WP:DUCK test for dup vote from Makeitbetter3009.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Houtan Delfi

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

No references; plays in a semi-professional league, fails WP:FOOTYN Vanadus (talk | contribs) 21:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a number of Google hits but as virtually all of them seem to relate to material the subject has uploaded to advertise himself, there is no evidence of genuine notability. The page history indicates WP:AUTO as an additional reason for deletion. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity page. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 17:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is eligible for deletion purely on the grounds that it is an unreferenced BLP, and therefore also fails WP:GNG. Even if there were sources to confirm the content of the article, the player in question would still fail WP:NSPORT.

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. causa sui (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carnifern

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

Non-notable fictional "species" of sentient man-eating plants in a video game. Article consists mostly of in-universe stuff presented as if it were real-world info, chaotically mixed with OR speculation about alleged parallels or comparisons with hypothetical real-world plants. No sources independent of the video game (plus some ridiculously non-reliable random websites) Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. nice moving picture, though. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~: Merge into the SimEarth article; moving image and all. GVnayR (talk) 01:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could not locate any reviews that made particular note of this in-game element. With no independent verification, I can't endorse a merge. Create a redirect if need be. Marasmusine (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After doing some further thinking into the subject, I have decided to change my vote to redirect to the SimEarth article. GVnayR (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks references. ambiguous content..--Herjee (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These seven references were the best that I could find on the Internet. If anyone has any science fiction books, magazines, or other print references to make the content less ambiguous, be my guest and place it on the article. GVnayR (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Medicine (novel)

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

No assertion of notability (WP:notability (books)), no references, just plot summary. RJFJR (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This Arthur Hailey novel was described by the New York Times as a "best seller" that was made into a TV movie in this article. The fact that the NYT didn't like it doesn't detract from its notability. Accordingly, it meets the third section of the notability guideline for books. In addition, there are plenty of reviews available by adding Hailey's name to a Google News Archive search of the commonly-named book title here.Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (ec) The article is in rather dire condition, but this notable potboiler came from a prominent author, hit the New York Times Bestseller List for weeks, was actually reviewed in the Times [4], became a TV miniseries, and otherwise became a durable tumor on the body of American literature, as demonstrated by the extensive array of GBooks hits [5]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's assessment of Arthur Hailey's literary legacy, but I believe that Mr. Hailey cared more about royalty checks that critical acclaim. Many of his works, including this one, are notable nonetheless. Notability in the realm of books here is not the same as great literature. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though the article needs to be rewritten to diminish the plot and add a few other things, like the reception. Meets the GNG (and the book guidelines) with signifcant published reviews, including the NYTImes, BBC, Telegraph, In fact it reached #3 on the NYT Best Seller List ^[1] , There's even a long NYT article on a video movie based on it. [6] The nom said no evidence of notability , but its the subject, not the article which has to be notable, and the most superficial gsearch could have told him otherwise. Nominations such as this can however be helpful, for they offer yet further evidence why WP:BEFORE should be required. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball Keep. There is absolutely no chance that this article is going to be anything other than kept, at least in the coming days. To save adminisrators work, and to stop Wikipedia from being brought into disrepute, I am performing a non-admin closure. Egg Centric 16:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Mark Duggan

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

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

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

(article moved several times since AfD began)

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

I am proposing this article for deletion because I don't think it really adds anything to the encyclopedia. I think it would be better if the page redirected to 2011 London riots 5 albert square (talk) 20:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The riots have the potential to become historic and notable. I see you acknowledge this by agreeing to have an article on the riots. In similar case, we have also subarticles on the persons who were somehow the case of the riots. Why do you wish to follow a different approach here? Tomeasy_{T C} 20:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, the riots themselves have the potential to become notable. However I still don't see that there is anything covered in Mark Duggan's article that isn't or couldn't be covered in the London Riots article. My opinion is we only need the London Riots article here, it's them that's gaining notability because they're so widespread. Perhaps they could be merged then, like the Cumbria shootings and Derrick Bird were. --5 albert square (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attention editors

Please note that this article is about an event, not a biography (and much less a biography of a living person). As such, any arguments centered around notability, be them for delete or for keep (or any other variation), should center on the policies around events, not people. Arguments that center around the personal notability of Mark Duggan might be ignored by the closing admin. Please also remember that this discussion is about the deletion of the Death of Mark Duggan article and not the 2011 England riots article.

Keep - It's the first place I've found a sensible event to spark this wave of rioting, all the rest has been gloss, as the triggering event it is of note in its own right; keep editing and improving it, nothing else has indicated a sensivbile source for the riots; but right wing death squads on the streets as this article indicates are a sensible clue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.136.201.107 (talk) 06:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ until anything warranting an article is available - everything is covered by the 2011 London riots article. violet/riga _^[talk] 20:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm satisfied that the article has grown sufficiently and hope that editors remember to keep the information here rather than in the riots article. violet/riga _^[talk] 20:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I hold that the riots themselves warrant inclusion, similarly to the article on Rodney King, who would not have been notable without the riots that followed his ~~death~~ abuse. Tomeasy_{T C} 21:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rodney King is still alive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.150.166 (talk • contribs)

What does this imply? Does it make him more notable? The only difference I see is that the LA riots are probably more notable? Duggan dead, King alive is not really an argument either way (in- or exclusion). Tomeasy_{T C} 21:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was I the first one who tried an article on this person? Have there already been AfD discussions on this? Tomeasy_{T C} 20:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Please not the dab page Mark Duggan which probably receives quite some hits at the moment. Does it make sense to have an individual listed on a dab page but not wanting an article? That's how I came by it. Tomeasy_{T C} 21:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. People who spark major events gain notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this article should remain as it will be of interest to the public, the london riots should be kept seperate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hightower25 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 8 August 2011
I believe it should be merged with the riots article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.150.166 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 8 August 2011
Redirect to 2011 London riots. This is a classic case of someone known for just one event. It is not at all comparable to Rodney King because Mr. King did not die, stayed in the news for years, and was covered in great detail by countless reliable sources in the context of many events - his original beating, reactions to the video of his beating, the trial of the policemen who beat him, the riots that followed the verdicts, his own statements trying to calm the violence, the aftermath of the riots and so on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK that is an argument which makes sense. Are we not to have articles on persons who are just known for one event? What if this one event is truly noteworthy?

I expect there will be a large amount of interest from our readers in the personal details of this individual. Tomeasy_{T C} 21:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a redirect is probably not worthwhile - Mark Duggan is a dab page linking to the riot article and this has the title of "Tottenham riots". violet/riga _^[talk] 21:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for disambiguation, all we need is a hat note at the top of the article about the footballer, saying something like, "For the taxi driver Mark Duggan whose death triggered violence, see 2011 London riots. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly appropriate, in my opinion, to have an article on the worst riots in London in decades. It is appropriate to have a section in that article about the shooting that triggered the riots. That section should include a few sentences on the man who was killed. But our policies discourage separate biographical articles about otherwise non-notable people who get a brief flurry of press attention only because they were caught up in a notable event such as this shooting and the riots that followed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I could live with this reasoning and decision. However, do you not think that many readers will look for personal information on this individual? If Mark Duggan gets many hits, would that not be reason to have such an article? Tomeasy_{T C} 21:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are here to build an encyclopedia with article on topics of enduring notability, rather than to satisfy short term curiosity. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper - there are plenty of them around, even if a well-known one closed down recently. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, we are here to build an encyclopedia? Did not know that. Thanks for the reminder. Nevertheless, I think that one can very well agree on the purpose of this project, while still having different positions on the inclusion of a certain topic. Tomeasy_{T C} 21:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can come to an agreement, or we can agree to disagree. I am not saying your opinion has no validity, but rather that I believe my opinion in this matter has a better basis in established policy and guidelines for this project than yours. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may certainly believe that, but argument from authority isn't terribly convincing. Let's get back to the issue itself; it is whether this man, since he is notable only for one incident, is sufficiently notable to have a page. The policy on people notable for only one event does not indicate that all such articles should be deleted, it says it is "unclear", and gives the example of someone who is a small player in a large event, or a large player in a small event. Duggan is neither - he is the most-often cited cause of a large event. Whether he is actually the logical cause is not relevant; his death is famously cited as the cause.

We do not have crystal balls, but this event is the direct cause, but a separate event, from the 2011 England riots. As such, there is already independent notability established, for example the preliminary (and controversial) investigation on the part of the Independent Police Complaints Commission. All evidence points to this event being notable in itself, in particular, the long-term resolution of the investigation into this death will be a notable event, which will affect the views on the other notable event, the riots. If we are wrong, we can then in the future merge it into the riots, but based on the current evidence, not crystal ball predictions, I highly doubt this event is not notable enough for its own article.--Cerejota (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONEVENT is only valid in that the article is about the person's death, not the person himself. --Trevj (talk) 12:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definite delete. Person is not notable for anything other than being a drug dealer shot by police, hardly worthy of an encyclopedia article and even if there was some minor justification for it, it would be moved in the main riot article. --TBM10 (talk) 21:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I came to Wikipedia looking up his name rather than a nomenclature for the London/Tottenham riots that would be unguessable. It is also likely that there will be an enquiry (or two or three, knowing how these things play out) into his shooting, and that will all need somewhere to go. As further details emerge, it would be useful to have a place to put them. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David - that is not necessary as his name will become a redirect if his article is deleted. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So.. basically, he isn't notable at this point and the article should be deleted? Cheers. Nevard (talk) 07:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DavidFarmbrough's argument Ruby2010 comment! 22:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We may very well come to a time when the subject of this article is more notable, and warrants a separate article (as is the case with Rodney King and Rodney King Riots -- you'll notice that second link is a redirect, a great little tool that I'm sure will be implemented if this article is deleted, which I hope will help alleviate the concerns of the person above who searched for the man not the riot.) As it is, everything in this article can fit just fine into the article on the riot. The mere possibility of there being more to add later does not seem like a valid reason to keep it now. Bobnorwal (talk) 22:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please note that as the article currently stands the only information it includes that is not already adeptly covered by the main article is about his wife and kids. I'm tempted to delete it based on BLP.

violet/riga _^[talk] 22:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~You do know what the L in BLP stands for? Joepnl (talk) 01:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep. The event alone is notable; similar events are covered with a Wikipedia article in a likewise manner. The 2011 London riots page should be an article solely on the riots, whilst the Mark Duggan incident should be covered in a separate page. Richard n 23:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E and WP:GNG. There is insufficient unique content for a spinout article. Subject is covered adequately in 2011 London riots. WWGB (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sheer number of mentions that Duggan is getting in the mainstream media as man whose death was the catalyst for major civil disorder (which is ongoing as we type) demonstrates the subject is notable now! ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stop trying to cover this mans death up. Keep so everyone can get a summary of why the riots even started! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.239.195 (talk • contribs)

— 82.28.239.195 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 00:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep We had to go through this with immolations in Tunisia, then with Egypt, then .... People want something to refer to and contribute to while news is going on. Not until later on is it possible to get adequate perspective; in the meantime the documentation is very thorough. Twang (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge with the article on the riots - not really notable on his own, purely for being the catalyst of some riots. — Joseph Fox 00:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DavidFarmbrough. The article has been correctly (IMO) moved to the Death of Mark Duggan as an event, it's not about the person Mark Duggan which would fall under BIO1E. It's a notable event; the article for which will be fleshed out as more background and explanation becomes available (as with the Death of Jean Charles de Menezes) -AL_LOCKE|^talk 00:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was going to suggest move, but someone has been bold and already did it. Article under its current title is notable as being the trigger for the London 2011 riots. Acebulf (talk) 00:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously this man is notable and people will want to know about him. Joepnl (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, he is not notable, any more than any of the other "333 people who died in British police custody", according to the 2011 London riots, are notable. Being a putative (and dubious) victim does not make anyone notable, per se. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hello? In case anyone noticed there are a few fires across London because of him. I wanted to know who he was, and what the circumstances were. Totally notable. History2007 (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under current title Death of Mark Duggan -- The legal fallout will almost certainly drag on for many years in various forms (as with many other comparable British incidents), with much media coverage along the way. Much more information will be released on the incident, beginning with certain forensic results promised within hours, so it seems pointless to delete the article right at this moment. The "2011 London riots" article is not the place to cover the details of Duggan's death (which happened several days before the riots began). AnonMoos (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. We have an article Death of Jean Charles de Menezes which is strongly analogous... AnonMoos (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - See also Death of Ian Tomlinson etc. AnonMoos (talk) 02:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When this debate began, the article in question was a biography of the man who was killed. I recommended deleting it then. In only a few hours, it has been renamed several times, and is now evolving into an article about the circumstances of his death and the controversy about it. In other words, the article we were debating at the beginning has been fundamentally changed into something else. The two articles mentioned by AnonMoos above represent the direction this article should head if it is to be kept. It shouldn't be a WP:BIO1E - those two articles aren't. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete. Redirect to the riots article. If not, delete. Duggan was a non-notable person who got killed, so his chances of rising beyond WP:ONEEVENT are nil. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To quote WP:ONEEVENT : "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." The event (major riots that have spread to at least two other cities) is significant. The subject (shooting of man by police is generally agreed to have sparked said riots) is a large role within the event. Therefore, this article should be kept. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for quoting something I didn't need quoted. I've read ONEEVENT, I don't agree with your interpretation. It even goes on to point out how individuals involved in an event often become a redirect to the article about the event, which is exactly what I'm saying to do. I don't see where this drug dealing gang member was notable on his own. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - I question whether Duggan's role was "a large one". He just took a bullet. WWGB (talk) 03:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article is about his death and the ramifications, not a biography of the man himself. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - It was one bullet that started WW1. Agathoclea (talk) 14:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More information will be published about Duggan's background as the press try to make sense of it, not to mention the IPCC inquiry pending. Also, from what I've read, the last 2 of the 3 days of violence have little to do with the death. — Yk ʏк yƙ talk ~ contrib 04:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under current title as per AnonMoos' opinion. The Toxic Mite ^{t | c} 04:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect. This is the clearest example possible of a person known for single event; getting killed by the police. It doesn't matter how many people "vote" here, the closing admin should ignore all of these keep voters as they are 100% wrong. Speciate (talk) 04:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable event triggering a notable riot and deserves its own article. ~~User:Towel401~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.8.12 (talk) 04:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2011 London riots and redirect. Fails WP:ONEEVENT. Your Lord and Master (talk) 04:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2011 London riots. Leaving aside the lack of notability, there is no content in this article that isn't in that article. Nevard (talk) 06:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under current title - Clearly notable death, not to mention similar articles. (Gabinho^>:) 06:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Merge and redirect Because everything in this article also belongs in 2011 London Riots.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.197.99 (talk) 06:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but broaden into an article about the background to the rioting. There are already a few articles about this in reliable sources and it's inconceivable that there will not be more. Thryduulf (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As I gaze into my crystal ball, I suspect the man will be referenced slightly outside the context of the riots, especially as investigations into his death continue. That would probably end up in this article and not the 2011 London Riots. Outside the crystal ball, I think the ONEEVENT guideline is being interpreted a little too strictly, since arguably he was both killed which also created a riot. They're connected, but separate in importance. Victims of police brutality usually don't have an article, but then that brutality usually doesn't lead riots (see Rodney King). Xavexgoem (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This killing brings to the fore the long-running issue of alleged racism in the British police forces and will be highlighted again by the report of the Independent Police Complaints Commission. ARK (talk) 08:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Duggan's death notable due to circumstances (killed by police) and also as causation for the 2011 London riots. Gfcvoice
WP:BLP1E does not apply, as the article is about the death of Mark Duggan, rather than being about Mark Duggan. Even if the riots had not occurred, the circumstances of his death (killed by police) are notable. Gfcvoice (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Duggan's death WAS NOT "causation for the 2011 London riots"; the peaceful protest regarding his shooting was hijacked by the thugs and rioters as an excuse to loot and destroy property. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Compare Blair Peach. Biscuittin (talk) 08:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per User Biscuittin. Adrian (talk) 08:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His death is a watershed incident in UK history. And surely more information regarding the circumstances of his death will emerge as time passes by. Astronomyinertia (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Perhaps then we should have an article on the policeman who shot him? After all, it was he who sparked the riot, right? Speciate (talk) 09:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the article is still WP:BLP1E by another name. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Definite delete Duggan's unfortunate death would probably have resulted in hardly a mention on Wikipedia had it not been for the subsequent riots. The contents of this article should be merged into 2011 London riots, with a redirect to that article. Davshul (talk) 10:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? The death of Jean Charles de Menezes etc. has quite a bit more than a mere "mention", despite not triggering any riots... AnonMoos (talk) 12:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BLP1E states that "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate.". In fact after reading this policy it seems to me this article is entirely appropriate given the huge magnitude of the event, and the apparently (at the moment) major role this person has played in said event. For example, Howard Brennan was not one of the central characters in that major event and is not notable for anything else, but he has a separate article and is cited in WP:BLP1E. C 1 (talk) 10:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' WP:BLP1E allows articles on people notable for only one event if the event is very important and the person had a large role in it, and says that the indicator of importance is how persistent coverage of the event is in reliable sources. The riots resulting from his death are an important event and given the riots and the various investigations into the shooting there is likely to be lots of coverage for some time. Since BLP1E arguably doesn't apply anyway (the subject is dead) and since the article is about the person's death rather than the person I think the existence of this page as a seperate article can be justified. Hut 8.5 10:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' His death is a significant incident in UK history. 20040302 (talk) 11:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is clearly a need for a seperate page to deal with this man's death and the circumstances around it, as well as adding on more information, as new details come to light. And especially if it is proven that he was murdered in cold blood. The even is significant enough in itself. We should not forget why we should be angry and even though I do not agree with rioting and burning buildings, they display how all of us feel. Milka5000 12:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.60.98.133 (talk) [reply]
- With respect, personal opinions on the incident are not being discussed and shouldn't be brought to Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). Your main point, that the article subject is very significant, is certainly true and valid. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge' to 2011 London riots. There is nothing that is keepable in this article for it to have its own article here, all of written there can be merged into that proposed merge article. Donnie Park (talk) 11:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge Redirect it to the section in the 2011 London riots page [7], move some of the materials from here to there. Recreate the page in the future if more solid information come out.Zlqq2144 (Talk Contribs) 11:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Weak Keep Scratch that. After reading some comments below, I now believe that it should be kept, as an individual and notable event (albeit far less than the riots but nevertheless notable) of police shooting a man (self-defence or not). Also, the friend and relative peaceful protest too. Zlqq2144 (Talk Contribs) 12:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm British and a long term Canadian. In three days our news vehicles(CTV and CBC) have not reported anything to do with the reasons for rioting except that the police shot someone. I looked up the images of rioting on Flickr.com, and found the victims' name. Searching the name Mark Duggan led to BBC news online and subsequently to the reason that Mark Duggan was shot, news of police misapprehension, and also to a humanizing description of the family relationships for the deceased (although the still born child is certainly family business and not ours). I agree with Tomeasy, that these aspects of societal malaise have fulminated into an event with the potential to become historic. In Criminology studies, researchers would look for stats on the reasons for violent rioters actions, and go for any aspect that suggests the exploitation of the victims' dilemma or of peaceful protest. News circuits do not express the idea that Duggan was a drug dealer, nor that he was a College student. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.44.180 (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

— 99.224.44.180 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to 2011 London riots as thoroughly non-notable small time criminal. If he gets a page anyone killed by the police under any circumstances will merit their own page Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - revisit this question in six months when we have the perspective of time. There is no urgency to remove the article for now. There is notability here, the article is referenced, there is no need to remove it. When things have settled down a little, we'll know better whether this persons' death is truly worthy of a separate article or whether this was merely a footnote to a greater whole. When the rioting is over and some serious investigation into his death has been undertaken, we may decide whether there is continuing notability. SteveBaker (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 2011 London riots. Non notable alledged criminal and drug addict who shot by police. WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME. Notability is not inherited from the riots. If a catalyst for the riots, then should be mentioned in that article. Does not have independent notability for his own article.--v/r - T P 13:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to 2011 London riots. Louis Wu (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per TP, Anything relevent about the death can go in the 2011 London riots - the looting and riots have little to do with his Duggan anyway, I doubt many of them can even name him. He's just a dead criminal, and thus as a stand alone he is non-notable. The idea that in a few months he may still be spoken about is in violation of WP:Crystal. BulbaThor (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As stated above, his only notability is re: the riots, and any information about him can go in the main article.--Chimino (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please note that WP:BLP1E alone does not yet settle whether a separate article should exist about a person notable for one event -- the relevant criterion is significance of the event and significance of the person in question for the event. I argue that a) the event is obviously significant, and b) (the death of) Mark Duggan, at least according to our current knowledge, appears to be a major factor in causing/igniting the event; therefore keeping a separate article is justified.

Also note the similarity to Mohamed Bouazizi and his role in the Arab Spring -- like Mark Duggan he is notable only because of one event, his self-immolation, but his significance for the event and the overall significance of the event justified maintaining a separate article. Minvogt (talk) 15:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no similarity between Bouazizi and Duggan. Bouazizi died by his own hand in self-sacrifice; he was not a drug dealing, lowlife thug. To compare them is sickening. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You kind of miss the point: IMO they are (or appear to be) similar in their significance for an important event, i.e. they were the catalyst for something big that happened after their death. Perhaps I could have phrased it better, but I'm not sure if that would have made a difference for you, as you seem to have pretty strong opinions about this issue anyway ("...drug dealing, lowlife thug."). Minvogt (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - That is way off topic. We're not discussing our personal opinions of Mark Duggan here. Despising the subject of an article is hardly a reason for deletion. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Let's end this debate now under WP:SNOW. It's embarrassing for Wikipedia. --EddieBernard (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The IPCC has confirmed that there is no evidence that Duggan shot at the police. The death of Mark Duggan is a story that's going to run. ARK (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:SNOW as merge and redirect? Seriously, there is quite a split and there really are better ways of making your point than how you just did. And for those voting Keep I'd like to know what content is actually in this article that isn't already in 2011 London riots. I fully expect this to become an article in the future but right now it's a needless duplication with few people helping out (to add to it or remove vandalism). violet/riga _^[talk] 17:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It's pretty obvious just by the amount of discussion that this is a controversial matter, and controversial matters are considered important in this day and age, not to mention it is very notable that this man (having in a sense caused the riots) is linked directly to the 2011 London riots... Just make a section with a header called "Death of Mark Duggan" in the 2011 London Riots article and be done with it. L.C.E.C. (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Im not from UK, but im interested on info about this riot, i consider ignorance and stupidity the deletion of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apatuka (talk • contribs) 19:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC) — Apatuka (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- There would appear to be confusion here - the riot article is at 2011 England riots, this is just the tiny bit of duplication from that article. violet/riga _^[talk] 19:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. merge with london riots — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.236.124 (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC) — 78.145.236.124 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The above user has precisely two edits, both of which are demanding a merger of this article. I like to WP:AGF so I'm wondering if that user has perhaps forgetfully commented again on this AFD after accidentally logging out of their regular account? ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 20:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the other edit is a comment on the talk page of the article and they then came here - it is not a second vote within this AfD. violet/riga _^[talk] 20:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable and has received media coverage. --User:DiscipleOfKnowledge (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An example of deletionism at its silliest. Moncrief (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; events like this, which spark rioting and are widely covered by media, are clearly notable topics. dalahäst ^(talk) 22:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep; How can this be called "non-notable" when it's been on global news? SalfEnergy 22:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SalfEnergy (talk • contribs)
Keep notable, no article policies violated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebe123 (talk • contribs)
Delete. The often-cited comparison with Rodney King goes awry, since there was a courtcase and some famous televised appearances ("Can't we all just get along?"). This is one single event that is supposed to make the person notable--but it's not really about the person. A redirect is fine, of course, and I guess I could live with a merge as well. But an independent article, no. Drmies (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Merge with the 2011 London Riots rather than keep as a second, separate article. I think most, if not all of the information on this page needs to be part of the riot article, perhaps under the "Causes" section. The argument is not "should we delete it?" but "Does notability of the subject (Mark Druggan) exist without the existence of the riots?" RandomAct^{(talk to me)} 22:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lachlanusername (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Don't see why a person who got shot down by the police needs to have his own Wikipedia article, considering he was not known at all and only caused a minor peaceful demonstration. The major riots have nothing to do with him directly. Therefore delete.--92.21.26.107 (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Independent coverage of the event is substantial and the fact that his death has been said to have at least partially instigated a larger riot makes this event well beyond a run-of-the-mill shooting and subsequent death. What harm is being done to Wikipedia by keeping this article? None that I can perceive through these policies. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with no prejudice to renomination after the riots have finished. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the valid reason to renominate for deletion later (if the article is kept for now) would be if the Duggan shooting matter is resolved legally very quickly and painlessly, without any inquests or significant implications for police-community relations in Britain. I consider this to be rather improbable, but it might possibly happen... AnonMoos (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article adds nothing to the encyclopaedia that isn't already contained in the 2011 England riots article.--Life in General (Talk) 23:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - for the time being, it seems easier to me to deal with the matters relating to this death in a separate article. It doesn't harm anyone or violate any of our policies, and it takes pressure off the main article. The long-term notability of Mark Duggan can be re-assessed after the riots have stopped and the story seems to have finished; if there turns out to be little more to say about him, I wouldn't object to a merge then. Robofish (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and Merge into a section on the 2011 British Riots -that way people searching only his name will find the article on the rioting. The individual himself is not noteworthy as a petty criminal that drew-down on the police and lost -something that occurs daily. GenQuest (talk) 00:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I want to make clear that this is not a WP:CRYSTAL rationale, because it would hold true even if the rioting stops right now. The riots article is of a quite significant size already, is likely to grow unless all disorder stops now, and I would expect the aftermath to eventually add another 20-30% to its size. Furthermore, if this is merged into the riots article, I would expect the section on Duggan's death to grow dramatically as the facts of the case are unearthed. I'm on the fence as to whether the event itself was notable, but in practise this is a logical split to what is unquestionably going to become a very large article. —W F C— TFL notices 01:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely correct. WP:CRYSTAL applies to the tone of the article itself. We, as (hopefully) rational-minded, logical human beings can look at the riots and say "Yeah, this is fucking huge news and will be remembered and written about for quite some time and when the causes are brought up, Duggan's death will be mentioned". That isn't "a violation of WP:CRYSTAL", that's us making a reasonable prediction based on available evidence. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge into a section on 2011 England riots ; as User:GenQuest. Necrid Master (talk) 02:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reason for deleting the article is not strong and has no supporting rationale or policy violations. The death of this man is what caused the London riots, that is very notable for inclusion on wikipedia. ScienceApe (talk) 02:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think the article about the riots should have many details about the death of Duggan, because the details of Duggan's death are not particularly relevant to the riots. That said, the details of Duggan's death are notable in their own respect. If you want to merge and redirect, a more appropriate merge and redirect would be to Operation Trident (Metropolitan Police). 173.65.30.236 (talk) 03:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why are they notable? Just because he got shot? Drmies (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - CommentNotable because he was shot was police, and died as a result. One would assume that London police don't randomly kill civilians every day of the year. Gfcvoice (talk) 04:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please spare us the strawman, Drmies. The incident is notable because it is a "controversial death in an incident involving the police" and "there are serious doubts about the integrity of the initial reports of the incident by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)". [8] According to Police use of firearms in the United Kingdom (which would be another potential merge and redirect target, should the article not be meaty enough to stand on its own), over a 12 year period, "30 people had been shot dead by police". This is much more notable than a mere matter of "someone got shot". 173.65.30.236 (talk) 04:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Spare us the false rhetoric about the strawman, 173. Not everyone who gets shot by the police is notable, not even in the UK. It's not the death itself that is notable, and that is plain to see--only the aftermath has brought us here. In the case of James Ashley, for instance, there are circumstances surrounding the shooting that make for notability, perhaps. In the case of de Menezes, that's without a doubt. Not so here. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually he's right, you did make a strawman logical fallacy. ScienceApe (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - To clarify, for the record, I am saying that every instance where someone gets shot and killed by the UK police under controversial circumstances, is notable. 173.65.30.236 (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An article on the man would be notable at this point, and since he's really only notable for this event, the article seems fairly titled. Trevyn (talk) 06:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. The whole article is about the riot, and Mark Duggan would not have any notability unless talking about this.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 07:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Even had not the riots occurred, the detail now emerging about the shooting would undoubtedly put it into the "controversial" category. Nick Cooper (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the London Riots page. He is not notable except as the catalyst for the riots. HonkyTonkHarlot (talk) 08:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now there may be, down the line, a clearer indication of notability, but for now in the current climate it seems like it will be a notable topic. We can always readdress as needed. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge. There is no significance to the death of this individual other than being the spark that began the riots. He could be much better covered on the main article. Kinaro^{(say hello)} ^{(what's been done)} 09:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It looks to me like a snowball keep judging by the above. In a few months time, when the riots have settled down and the IPCC have reported, some other re-organisation of the material may seem more appropriate and can be considered then, but, for now, there's plenty of coverage specific to this article. Bondegezou (talk) 09:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At least for now - as Bondegezou says. After the events, some condensing of material would be good, but as things unfold so quickly, it doesn't seem helpful to delete. ChrisHodgesUK (talk) 09:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - obvious keep, this persons death sparked these riots.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —BabbaQ (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The volume of interest in this AfD alone proves that there is notability to this person,not only the event that followed this persons death.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, no it doesn't prove that at all. It just shows that a lot of people feel very passionately about the issue for some reason. Your Lord and Master (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains a substantial risk of serious prejudice in the event of any criminial case arising in connection with the death of Mark Duggan and should be deleted in its entirity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.50.180.68 (talk) 13:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely untrue as long as WP:NPOV is adhered to. Please remember that Wikipedia is not censored. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Editor ARK in their comment above says: "This killing brings to the fore the long-running issue of alleged racism in the British police forces..." This is the first suggestion I have seen that Duggan was of a different race than the police who shot him. This puts a "different perspective" on the ensuing riots. Is there some hesitation to raise the point in 2011 England riots and in Death of Mark Duggan? Wanderer57 (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because no reliable media has raised race as an issue. WWGB (talk) 13:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Community organizers, neighborhood residents and members of Parliament who represent the districts, including several who, like Mr. Duggan, were of Afro-Caribbean descent, have said, overwhelmingly, that his death, while providing the original trigger for the violence, has had little or nothing to do with the looting and arson." from today's New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/11/world/europe/11britain.html?smid=fb-nytimes&pagewanted=all (I'm just leaving this here as I don't have time to work on the articles.) Wanderer57 (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP under current title of Death of Mark Duggan - it is a notable event and it is in the public interest to keep it. Also, WP:STEAM --AndrewTindall (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Merge with 2011 England riots, person lacks notability, event is significant, but significant to London Riots. Rodney King has an article, but that is because his notoriety has grown beyond the LA Riots, Notice Reginald Denny does not have an article.--0pen$0urce (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald Denny does have an article: Reginald_Denny incident. AdamSommerton (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into 2011 England riots. I'm not so much opposed to it being merged into the larger article, but I wouldn't like it to just be redirected without the content being transferred as well. Mnmazur (talk)
KEEP - there are many arguments above that Duggan was not a worthy individual. That's really not the point. His death is controversial, and will lead to high-level public enquiries; particularly because it is the most-cited cause of the London Riots, but also because it was an organised public shooting by police of an unarmed man in a first-world country. There will be a lot of further coverage of his death and the subsequent enquiries. It is already known across the world, and is likely to be the subject of further front-page news stories and detailed investigative articles. To merge it into an already complicated article on the riots that his death sparked would make it harder to keep the facts of this notable incident in order.~~
Keep - this is an important and ongoing issue. If it's to be deleted, that discussion should take place after the dust has settled. Foobard (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The proposed deletion seems to fit under WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but also because the topic is inherently notable (based on the number of references and the scale of the topic). 2.124.42.95 (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as the direct cause of the 2011 England riots, but completely separate - as an event - from them, this article more that satisfies WP:GNG, and there is no reason for it to not exist. People need to kneejerk a little less, and read sources a little more. --Cerejota (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If this article can be kept then so can this article. NorthernThunder (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The death of Mark Duggan, while being the initial spark that started the riots (and thus notable), should not be simply redirected to the 2011 England riots article. For one thing, one unfortunate killing of a civilian by a police force is hardly a precedence for widespread destruction (which isn't even particularly targeted at the police). As such, while this person's unfortunate death certainly deserves to be mentioned in the main riots article, it shouldn't go into excessive detail as not all of the information relating to Mark Duggan's death is relevant to that article. Rather, Mark Duggan's death is a separate event, which gets most of its notability from a subsequent event, but is notable nonetheless, and separating the two events across two articles is both the cleanest and the most informative way to put these recent events into article format. 81.82.98.2 (talk) 23:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent point. For example, Duggan's inquest will be important to the article about his death but totally irrelevant to the article about the riots. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sure is, but the inquest is not until 12 December! violet/riga _^[talk] 07:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I was giving a random example of the validity (IMO) of the user's suggestion for the future of the article rather than claiming that was why the article should not be deleted. By the way, thanks for your rewording on the box at the top, it was a definite improvement. Users seem to have stopped making the WP:BLP mistake since it's been in place. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 09:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The person was the initial point and still remains pivotal to the whole protests and riots. Other articles with similar situation have dedicated pages for characters/victims eg. Jeffrey Miller, so should this one. Deleting this will not help understanding the main article and a merge will only make an already big article bigger. --182.185.50.106 (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for God's sake. This is a dumb debate and was probably started by someone upset with the events over the past few days. END THIS. 98.223.65.209 (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I consider this article PASSES WP:BLP1E given the "event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented", as with Howard Brennan. -- Calrion (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I dont know why would you propose such a significant article for deletion. Of course it adds to the encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.95.90.212 (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While the catalyst for the riots, his death is an entirely separate event. As time goes on, more information about the death will come to light and this article will become more significant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.226.159 (talk) 11:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:EFFECT --Trevj (talk) 12:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in my mother's language (i.e. german) the Death of Mark Duggan makes me thinking of a 'spark' that would bring a barrel of powder to an explosion; (cf. forum entry of dict.leo.org) i.a.w. the article refers to an event that caused a volatile situation to quickly get into an historic situation - as beeing a spark in currents history, the rather instant memory of the article should be maintained. thank you for your kind attention shryber --Shryber (talk) 12:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)(CEST)[reply]
Merge. This info belongs in the London Riots article. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 12:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily satisfies notability requirements. Adelson Velsky Landis (talk) 12:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable subject with good reliable sources. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Event seperate from the ongoing riots / causal / and well documented therefor fits WP:GNG Agathoclea (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Mark Duggan and convert to a biography. For consistency. Kirils (talk) 15:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to 2011 England riots. Duggan is apparently notable only for his death leading to rioting, so there's no reason to maintain a biography/memorial on Wikipedia. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The riots are the bigger story but these are two separate events. The shooting will have legal ramifications of its own in addition to the riots. It's because of the riots that Duggan's death became notable. That notability will make the legal proceedings afterward more high profile than they would have been. The death and the riots are linked but not identical events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellabaker (talk • contribs) 16:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deletion would be clear censorship. The riots and the death are two separate issues. 86.162.80.125 (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC) — 86.162.80.125 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Redirect and merge to the article on the riots. Clear ~~WP:BLP1E~~WP:BIO1E, not notable for anything other than being shot. Chzz ► 17:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Why is this person's death so important? We'd all like to learn about it! Keep it. And, REMOVE the huge "proposed for deletion" tag in the article please. - Niri M / ನಿರಿ 17:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is clearly a notable event, independently from the riots that followed it. Duggan's death raises major issues about police firearms policy, and this was already the subject of extensive news coverage even before the riots had started. -- The Anome (talk) 19:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of the discussion above is irrelevant anyway because it is focused on Mark Duggan's notability as a person. This article is about a crime that sparked a protest and tremendous riots in the UK. It is important to/but separate from the riots article itself. The police investigation and any court proceedings will also be pertinent to this article, but not needed for the riots article. I would also point out that there is an article on Catherine_O'Leary famous for her cow starting the Great Chicago Fire. Surely the death of Mr Duggan is equally important. --Charlesroth (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep - clearly notable incident, and a useful article in itself William M. Connolley (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect to 2011 England riots. Subject in question is notable only for his death leading to rioting. The article is nothing more than a "memorial page" on Wikipedia.

Merge & Redirect to 2011 England riots. Classic WP:BLP1E situation. The article doesn't even have a single ref that's not specifically about the shooting. Yes, the death is tragic, but it's only notable in relation the riots it sparked. Rodney King is not comparable as he continued to be a public figure long after the riots he sparked.. 108.67.153.215 (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the merge & redirect proponents take a look at the Death of Jean Charles de Menezes and Death of Ian Tomlinson articles. It is reasonable to assume that the Death of Mark Duggan will become an issue of very similar proportions. This isn't about the 2011 England Riots, it's about the police. ARK (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the Mrs. O'Leary's Cows, Rodney Kings, and Mark David Chapmans of the world, whose presence as catalysts of major events rendered notability. 99.155.206.229 (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets the standards of notability. There are numerous articles relating to deaths (accidental or otherwise) that received less coverage than this has and will do. In addition to being notable now, it is likely to gain even greater significance independently from the riots due the subsequent investigations. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 23:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mark Duggan's death ignited a huge riot, he's much more than just a drug dealer who just got shot. (User talk: Annj87) —Preceding undated comment added 01:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Neutral One idea i had, is that maybe we can cut the size of the article down a little bit and merge whats left to 2011 England Riots. Just a middle of the road plan. Dusty777 (talk) 02:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm glad to see that the article title was changed to "Death of Mark Duggan": thanks, editors. This means that the POV I presented was not the only one. My main argument is that this death and the investigation that will follow have a separate public, theme and pace from the one on the London Riots. I'm enchanted by the change of the name: what's notable is not Mr. Duggan biography, what's notable is the event of his death notable because the police lied about he shooting them (at least we have press reports about that). If he had drawn a gun, shoot at police and then he had been shoot back, the article would not be notable. When the UK Police, which most people (I think, at least I do) around the world respect for their famous restraint about using guns lie about a person shooting at them, I want to know what the UK justice does about that. This can lead even to changes in the way UK police handles this kind of incidents. The riots are barely related to this theme. The riots will be over soon (hopefully). The investigation will drag for a long time.Ciroa (talk) 03:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - can both keep and delete !vs that talk about BLP1E explain who is the living person here? I just don't see how BLP1E applies to a dead person. I try to warp my head about it and come out blank. Maybe something is wrong with me, but I simply do not see it.--Cerejota (talk) 04:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can only assume that people are not reading the text near the top of this page "please note that this article is about an event, not a biography" Gfcvoice (talk) 05:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Police killings are notable. This event triggered insurrection, riots, looting, and a total breakdown of law and order for a short time. As an event that triggered such serious events it should be kept. Unixtastic (talk) 05:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Police killings that trigger massive riots in London are probably notable. Good grief. Can we close as keep via WP:SNOW? --Pstanton (talk) 06:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Some of the arguments favoring deletion express the attitude this death is unimportant because Mark Duggan "was a drug dealer", a "known criminal." BUT what evidence is there supporting the allegation? Wouldn't the "known criminal" tag come from the police? The police allegedly shot and killed Mark Duggan. The police have been caught lying about details of this case. How do we know Mark Duggan was really even armed? The fact remains, even if Mark Duggan was a drug dealer, this is not a capital offense in the U.K. The evident bias shown by these assumptions is certainly anything but neutral. Although cited as the precipitating factor for the riots, Mark Duggan's death is a separate incident from the riots, notable in and of itself, and which will continue to play out over time. It is incredible to me that this argument rages on, now approaching 10,000 words in response to an article currently standing at a little over 1,000 words. In and of itself, this discussion is indicative of the incident's notability. If this much interest doesn't indicate notability, I can't imagine what would. Laurel L. Russwurm (talk) 07:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC) — Laurelrusswurm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This article is a shrine for a thug whose family is seeking damages from Scotland Yard for doing their job, namely putting gun carrying criminals behind bars. Take it off ! — 81.243.119.90 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:58, 12 August 2011] (UTC).

The riots are notable, agreed, but the death of Mr. Duggan is also notable. I would suggest to do the same that was done in Menezes case: there is no biography of him but an article on his death: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes So, I say, let the article stand, but change its name to "Death of Mark Duggan". That is what is notable, not Mr. Duggan per se. It is so notable that it unleashed a riot unheard of in the UK! The cause of his death and the research into it that will follow surely deserves a separate article. One thing is the riot, a different one is the circumstances surrounding this death and the investigation that will follow. There is the slim connection between them (from an encyclopedic point of view): the riots will be over in a matter of days or weeks, while the investigation will carry on for months or years. Similarly, for example, the Death of Marat deserves an article, different from The Terror. Same policy goes with Rodney King (his biography is incuded in Wikipedia because he was beaten, so the beat and the investigation and trial that followed have an article) while the L.A. riots have their own entry. Ciroa (talk) 02:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Police killings in countries where that is not the norm are very notable. This one directly trigged large scale social unrest so it is highly notable. Unixtastic (talk) 05:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep the article, for the sake of honesty, clarity and transparency. don't try to hide or minimize uncomfortable truths. it's interesting and it stands in line with other relevant victims of police violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicky Romano (talk • contribs) 11:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC) — Nicky Romano (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment Mark Duggan's death is of major individual importance aside from the riots, esp. now as it is under investigation and new evidence is seeming to point to a possible police blunder (http://voice-online.co.uk/article/new-witnesses-duggan-police-shooting-says-ipcc) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.112.224 (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability has already been established (see also Rodney King for a similar event). Zerbey (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This keep/delete/merge discussion is now more than 5 times as long as the article it is about. What does it take to end this controversy and move on to more productive work? Wanderer57 (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IDesk

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

Delete Advertising spam plain and simple. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability per WP:GNG, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Gurt Posh (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't find any coverage by third-party sources. —Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 05:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable application. Joe Chill (talk) 03:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

100 Greatest TV Moments from Hell

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

Copyright violation, as this is a subjective list and therefore the intellectual property of Channel 4. Such subjective lists are regularly deleted from Wikipedia. I attempted to remove all but the top ten, but was reverted. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SO I was right your throwing the toys out because I made that edit, back. Problem is its cant really be intellectual property of Channel 4 as I said its a public vote, Me and many others voted for this. I take it you will get rid of the deletion point if the list gets cut back to top ten? Will you provide a direct link to somewhere else on the net which holds this informations, BUT there really isnt, so where are public suppose to read said info>?

I disagree said information is Copyrighted, Information collect is voted by the public, it also does not help that nearly all the other pages in this series are also have the full list. yet you not bothered to delete, clean them up, question them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyseiko (talk • contribs) 22:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The votes may be collected from the public but the results and the format of their presentation are the intellectual property of the TV company. The existence of other similar articles does not mean that this should automatically be kept (cf. WP:OSE), particularly as they have the same content problems which members have identified here. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nomination is spot-on and if the list itself is removed then what are we left with? A page saying that Channel 4 broadcast yet another programme in which they made a list of various television moments? The article on the series itself, 100 Greatest/100 Worst, gives all the information necessary. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unacceptable use of non-free text (WP:FU#Text 2), extends to the "complete or partial recreation of 'Top 100' or similar lists where the list has been selected in a creative manner". Reproduction of the full list in this case is a blatant violation of that guideline. Furthermore, to put the question of potential copyright infringement to one side, the article at present does little to assert the notability of the subject - list excluded, the content amounts to no more than an infobox and three sentences. That in itself probably constitutes a valid reason for deletion. It may well be appropriate to nominate other articles in Category:100 Greatest... (Channel 4 list shows), since several of these media-related "countdown" pages present very similar problems. Super Mario Man 22:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This kind of article is the reason why I look at Wikipedia at all. (Assuming the full list can be kept of course) Op47 (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:USEFUL. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No possible sources so the "author" (although they aren't really the author, Channel 4 is)could have made the whole list up just because he felt like making an article on Wikipedia. Also, even though he said that channel 4 made the list, it could be counted as plagiarism and Channel 4 might try and sue him — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naomib1996 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteI change my vote to delete, This is turning in to a complete fiscal, and just to point out the list is not made, there I have found a website which contain list: http://www.dvdfever.co.uk/100worst.shtml but wait the website could have could have made the whole list up just because he felt like making an article on the internet..... half the stuff on wiki is back up by so called sources on the net, which does not have real enough proof. WILL you be doing the same sort of action to this list?> 100_Greatest_Stand-Ups or Greatest_Comedy_Catchphrases or One-hit_wonder#Channel_4.27s_.2250_Greatest_One_Hit_Wonders.22 or even 50_Greatest_Comedy_Films. the original source would have came from here: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/atoz/0-9 but CH4 seem fit not to included this programme anymore, but fore you say I made up the show here is a youtube clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOohGnCkWIQ&feature=related — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyseiko (talk • contribs) 20:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, these sort of clip shows are done all the time, and are rarely notable. Daniel Case (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beanies (video game)

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

Article has no reliable sources independent of the game publisher (GamezArena), and so fails the general notability guideline. I looked, but was unable to find more. It was claimed on the talk page that this game was featured on several high profile websites, but these articles appear to all be down now - I cannot verify one way or the other. MrOllie (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 21:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable flash game. The internet is full of them. --Djohns21 (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Djohns21, the internet is not "full of this game", and it was even less so when this game was first released, back in 2002. Do a little research before you scream "Delete" -- PaleZoe (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC) — PaleZoe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Now it's about me as well... Splendid. I have been contributing to Wikipedia for almost two years now, on various topics, which have nothing whatsoever to do with this article. No, I'm not a super-active user, nor do I constantly delete other editor's contributions. My approach is and has always been to create and contribute in a more positive way.

Furthermore, I don't see how my contributions have anything to do with the noteworthiness of this particular game. I am the author, not the content. I suggest you focus on the content in question. That is what this discussion is about.

If you wish to attack me personally, I warmly recommend my talk page. -- PaleZoe (talk) 02:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding one the the statements you made on the talk page, if this had unpresidented features for its time and was a major release there should be several reliable sources that have covered it and in that case adding them to the article would be enough to save it.--76.66.186.54 (talk) 03:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 76.66.186.54, while I will be bringing up Weird Al's references for my reply to you I am not attempting to put GamezArena in the same class. Far from it. I am merely trying to show how easy something big can disappear.

on Monday, August 8th, 2011 - reference number 116 - Billboard

on Monday, August 8th, 2011 - reference number 119 - Grammy Award Winners - retrieved December 14, 2006

These are some rather large events and very well known and reputable sources... gone. Oh yes, you can probably find other sources to replace these but then again these were only around 5 years ago, not 9 as in the Beanies' case, and these companies haven't exchanged hands twice within that time either. And, let's don't forget, GamezArena isn't Weird Al Yankovic either but nonetheless notable. The mention of GamezArena and the Beanies were not televised. They were discovered and mentioned as "the game of the day". It's not a Grammy but it is acknowledgement of achievement. The actual pages do not exist any longer, the date was skipped by the archive robot, but screenshots were saved from during that time. And there are several other references that support the screenshot's validity.

Ryneaux (talk) 05:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

also regarding the high profile websites has anyone tried to use archive.org to find these articles. Obviously if these articles can be found that would help the case for keeping the article.--76.66.186.54 (talk) 03:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a number of these articles have been added as references. A couple of them couldn't be because they weren't archived on that particular day, so all that exists for those are archived screenshots of those pages, retrieved from the Beanies site. But even without the screenshots, there should now be sufficient reference, after some digging through archive.org. -- PaleZoe (talk) 03:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SPA tags in deletion discussions are standard, no offense was meant. I merely wanted to make sure that the closing administrator took into account that most of your edits relate to this game, GamezArena, or other websites published by the game's author. I've taken a look at the new citations, but two of them seem to be PR style blurbs from indiscriminate web directories, and the third may be workable (though it is currently mischaracterized by the article: they say 'Lame "Lemmings" knock-off' while the article says 'nice attention'), but it does not establish notability by itself, especially since it's so short and is mostly about the Lemmings. - MrOllie (talk) 04:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MrOllie, I would like to start with your reference to "nice attention". Can "nice attention" only mean "pleasant attention"? "I received a nice blow to the head!" Does that mean I received a pleasant blow to the head? Why did you not include all the text and pull out only "nice attention"? Why not quote "The Beanies game received nice attention and was mentioned on such reputable sites and magazines as"? Notability doesn't have to be only positive does it? Regardless of whether or not the author liked the game it was popular enough to be noticed and deemed worthy of mention.

As for the "PR style blurbs from indiscriminate web directories" I do not know which you are referring to. Channel 4? Interneto? Planet Internet? Or are you referring to the some of the references mentioned before the whole "nice attention" thing like the forums or blogs?

Ryneaux (talk) 05:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable Flash game and the internet is not full of such games and it has reliable sources. --Ryneaux (talk) 05:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC) — Ryneaux (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. I don't see sources except channel4 (whose criticism is not even mentioned in the article) that offer any critical commentary on the game. The planetinternet, interneto, and escapegames24 only offer a short generic description of the game. I understand other sources are no longer available, but if their coverage is just like these, then this does not establish notability. I see "NBC's Giga News and AOL News" mentioned as "a lot of recognition", but I can't find either of them anywhere. A single brief source does not establish notability, but I am willing to see if anything else can be found within the week of AfD. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 07:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for now, since no one has been able to produce reliable broad coverage sources or verify the printed sources to be beyond brief generic mentions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the coverage is very light, not enough to satisfy WP:N for me. No objection to using these sources to verify this game in a broader topic. The section discussion Lemmings clones in Lemmings (video game) would seem appropriate, or a list of Flash games. Marasmusine (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The refs dont indicate notability. Szzuk (talk) 08:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. causa sui (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adam James (American football)

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

James is notable, if at all, only for a single event. The same information in the Adam James article is (unfortunately) also in the Craig James article. Bbb23 (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#College_athletes as media coverage is tied solely to his father's actions (and covered in that article as stated above). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep he's had some in-game success, but it's rare. However, a quick google news search turns up 600+ articles, some of which are about him and his involvement with the event in question. Others are about his performance on the field. Looks like he's got one more season of play to go. I'm good with it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to only be notable for one event. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The article has been moved to Adam James (American football). Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant amounts of material have been written about him, and he remains an active college football player for Texas Tech. FrYGuY (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same reasoning as Eagles247--Yankees10 01:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Craig James. If not, delete per Eagles247.--Giants27(T|C) 03:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eagles247. I'm not seeing non-trivial coverage except as it relates to the disciplinary scandal. According to his Texas Tech bio, he's totaled 5 catches for 50 yards in the past two years of play. Cbl62 (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to his father, Craig James. The text is practically already verbatim in his more famous father's article. Adam James is only known for one event. Otherwise, delete—Bagumba (talk) 08:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 18:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mahesh Narayanan

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

Indian film editor. Although he worked on a few notable projects, Google News archives do not confer him any notability of his own. Most hits are about a namesake, a football coach. The remaining ones are trivial mentions. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. Beagel (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't see any sources on Google and Yahoo that could support a biography. SwisterTwister talk 00:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete - I have edited the page by adding correct informations and sources. Please do not delete this article. Thank You — SidhardhRamesh (talk • contribs) 14:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]
- We're not questioning the accuracy of your sources here, but only whether they establish notability. What I see are sources directly affiliated with the production, and IMDB, which we regard as not reliable enough given that the site accepts user-generated content with little or no editorial oversight. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ewww there's a Facebook reference in there - get rid of it! (That and it isn't notable based on a google search) Atomician (talk) 02:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mahesh Narayanan is a Famous Kerala Film Editor and i have created the page for him and even his name is in IMDB,Whats wrong with Wikipedia to delete,i have given so many links about him..i hate this stuff — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuvarajelavarasan (talk • contribs) 15:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. Uncontroversial causa sui (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calendars of 2005

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

For the genesis of this project, see this 2005 VPP discussion. Seems like an idea that made more sense in 2005 than it does on today's Wikipedia. The 2005 page includes Gregorian, Chinese, and Islamic calendars; pages for subsequent years include only a Gregorian calendar (2008 stops after May). Given that List of calendars lists 30+ kinds of calendars as "in use", and the 2005 page is already 71k, this seems like an impractical way of presenting information that's almost entirely included elsewhere, at Portal:Holidays/Calendar, on other pages and lists linked from that portal, and in Wikipedia's pages for specific days, months and years. I posted at WikiProject Time five days ago to see if anyone had any comment about these pages, but none was received. Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: the three users below (Paughsw, Schweiwikist, and Munchkinguy) are all users who had worked significantly on the 05 or 06 pages and whom I had notified of this discussion in case they wanted to weigh in. Theoldsparkle (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would support deletion of these pages! --Paughsw (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Self-evident as an abandoned project (My edits to "Cof2006" are from 5 yrs. ago). Reclaim the (admittedly small) space. —Schweiwikist (talk) 02:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can no longer maintain this project, and I imagine that there are better ways to do this than through Wikipedia, so will step aside and allow it to be deleted. --Munchkinguy (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not supporting keeping, but the GNG has nothing at all to do with the question; these pages which were created as sort of navigational pages for assisting readers to make correlations between articles. We no longer need them, but if someone were to insist on seeing it as a qy of GNG for notability , there are dozens of excellent sources correlating the calendars for every year. Every almanac has them, and hundreds of printed sources specifying which day comes when. It's true notability is the key question 90% of the time at AfD, but not always. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm sure an article about women in legislatures could be written, but consensus is clear, this isn't it. Courcelles 18:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Female parliamentarians

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

This has been a one-line, tautological, unsourced micro-stub for over five years. There was once a sort-of article there that was subject to AfD and narrowly survived with no consensus to delete. Since then, the contested material in it was deleted, and for years it has sat there as a one-line definition of sorts, but it isn't really even a definition, just circular reasoning. It is directly comparable to an article consisting of "A green plant is a plant that is green, and by extension can refer to stuff like fungi that aren't really plants." It is not a candidate for transwiki to Wiktionary (I removed the {{dicdef}}), since it isn't a phrase used as a word, like "mountain goat" (wikt:mountain goat) or "moon landing" (wikt:moon landing) that could form a valid Wiktionary entry, it's just an adjective and noun like "large ship" (~~wikt:large ship~~) and "Asian sculptor" (~~wikt:Asian sculptor~~). Note which of these are blue vs. red, and which lead to actual wikt articles. And it doesn't have Wiktionary-usable content anyway. Finally, we avoid creating articles and categories that are gender-divided unless there's a compelling reason to do so. Parliamentary positions haven't been a near-exclusively-male line of work for several generations now. We don't have Female doctor, Male nurse or other such articles either, for the same reason. Maybe or maybe not this idea could work as a list article, but this is not a list, so that consideration isn't relevant here. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 18:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While not being an appropriate term for a dictionary, I would still consider it essentially a dictdef in that the only content is a definition. Certainly there's nothing of value here. Perhaps redirect to Women in politics. Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self evident tautology with valueless pseudoextention. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Omg - women participate in politics. "Come here, ma!" Joe Chill (talk) 03:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 18:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Central Software

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

A non-notable company with non-notable products. Joe Chill (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't find any coverage by reliable sources. —Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 05:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. For the record, the two books pointed at by Puchiko arre by Books LLC and are Wikipedia print mirrors. Courcelles 18:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christoffer Matwiejew

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

PROD contested by article creator, with no reason given. This player has never played in a competitive first-team game, failing WP:NFOOTBALL; also fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 16:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (leaning towards keep): one article in Swedish [9] makes a passing mention of him, but perhaps more importantly. he has a chapter in two books [10], [11]. Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't think those are actual books, but simply a Wikipedia-scrape of some kind. Also, the article makes a very routine mention of his play in a U-18 match - not exactly enough to satisfy the GNG. I suppose this person will get a match soon enough, but we ought not violate CRYSTAL (he could just as easily never appear for his club due to injury or lack of opportunity). Jogurney (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that this person passes any of the relevant notability guidelines (NSPORTS or GNG). Jogurney (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 22:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WAIT. The player may become notable one day, but for now, the criteria for inclusion is very clear. —Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 06:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no evidence of significant coverage, and he has not played in a fully pro league. Therefore, he fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 18:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marla Nelson

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

I don't think she meets WP:BASIC. There's one source in the article, which is also the only reliable source I found via Google, so there aren't multiple reliable sources. Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Delete Per WP:ARTSPAM (creator of article has identical username to subject's Twitter account.). The article is not worth a redesign as the subject is simply a businesswoman who was once featured in a local newspaper. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with all the above. The external link,[12], one of only two I can find and available in the article, might allow it to squeeze through, which would be unfortunate because, as is frequent in articles like this, all the the other, and more, unreferenced promo spam will ride in on its saddle. Acabashi (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 18:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kacey (pornstar)

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. Biography is mainly unsourced. I had removed some flagrant BLP violations like arrest records and alleged real name. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unencylopedic content defined. Unsourced fancruft at best. "In her films, she often engages in "extreme" sexual acts like..." is pure original research. We have a date of birth and a place of birth and a name of an old boyfriend, but not a name? That's a massive biography fail. All these fourth rate bios of third rate pornstars need to be dumped in the ocean, they're BLP nightmares, pure fan cruft, and have no place in a serious encyclopedia. Fails General Notability Guidelines. Carrite (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've removed a large chunk of the article for flouting WP:BLP. Nothing to indicate the subject is notable, just (now-deleted) hearsay/unimaginative speculation as to her personal life. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 03:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing spectacular about this pornstarCurb Chain (talk) 10:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Victor Kelleher. Seems a reasonable solution. DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Red King (novel)

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

May not meet Wikipedia:Notability (books). Currently just an unreferenced plot summary. RJFJR (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Possible copyvio from Spiritus-Temporis.com though it's hard to established who copied whom.
The article's main claim to notability is The Red King was shortlisted for the 1990 Australian Children's Book of the Year Award and was at one point runner up in the 1990 South Australian Festival Awards for Literature, but I've been unable to find reference of this. However, these nominations do count for something. Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Wikipedia:Notability (books) talks about winning an award, it says nothing about being nominated, which at least for extremely prestigious awards might need to be expanded. RJFJR (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (unless unfixable copyvio is established). Also nominated for a well-known/significant genre award [13] and reviewed in significant publications [14] [15]. Presumably much more in offline print sources. Cited in reference works, too. [16] [17] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Victor Kelleher, at least for the moment. Kelleher clearly meets AUTHOR, so the question is whether the book merits a separate article - the article as it currently stands doesn't demonstrate this, so can it be improved? Quite likely - in my experience, books nominated for multiple similar awards to the ones mentioned often meet criterion 1 of NBOOKS. But they are not certain to do so and, in this case, it is still not clear whether this book does or not. Of the reviews located by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, the GBooks snippet for the first one, from Kirkus Reviews, suggests something substantial enough to count towards notability, but I'm less convinced by the snippet for the other review. Of the two reference work citations, the second, from The Encyclopedia of Fantasy, is one short sentence in the article on the author and the first, I suspect, is no more substantial. We do need to find further reliable sources which, as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz says, quite likely (though not certainly) exist but are probably offline. As I see it, the best interim solution is probably to incorporate the award nominations into the author's article, and leave this article as a redirect to it until someone has done the search for sources. PWilkinson (talk) 22:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 08:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Victor Kelleher. The book itself doesn't really have enough notability to warrant an article. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[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. v/r - T P 18:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Baldoni

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

Page should be deleted. Is self promotion. Subject is not notable. Does not meet Wikipedia article requirements.— Realitycheck29 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - possible bad faith nomination. Nominator's first edit was to vandalize the article. That being said, the article does appear to have some COI issues (due to the edits from Jbaldoni52v) and needs some serious editing, but the references from the Harvard Business Review (if real) would lead me to say Keep this article. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs some cleanup and rewriting for neutral POV but does appear to meet notability guidelines. Several Times (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I apologize. I did not initially intend to "vandalize" article. I was not familiar with procedure for removing pages. This article is about a "leadership development consultant" without notability. There are thousands of "leadership development consultants", does each one get a Wikipedia entry? Notability does not come from self publishing things on the internet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability_in_Wikipedia This article does not meet the characteristics for an encyclopedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia#Characteristics. Subject is not notable enough to be in an encyclopedia, and appears to be self promoting.

Questions of notability aside, self-promotion usually isn't grounds for deletion unless the article really wouldn't survive removal of all the material written from a non-neutral point of view. Several Times (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. It seems that the entire article about this subject was written by the subject. I don't think there can be a real neutral point of view writing this subject since it is probably not a notable subject. Majority of information about subject available on internet appears to be published by the subject. These entries are what I consider notable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams_%28disambiguation%29 Would you make another section on the John Adams page for "leadership consultants" if a John Adams who does that type of stuff wants a page? Hypothetically, I meet a janitor at a museum. I think he is very interesting, so I make 30 different webpages about him and then make a wikipedia biography of him. Does that article meet notability requirements?

If you think John Adams the janitor or John Adams the leadership consultant are interesting people, sure, your opinion alone probably isn't enough to justify inclusion in Wikipedia. I won't debate that. The qualities and accomplishments of any John Adams need to be backed up by proof from verifiable sources. That being said, this article does contain plenty of poorly referenced material, if only because some of them are simply blog entires. These are not the only sources available nor are they the only ones provided. With some work - potentially even reducing the article to a stub - this material could be encyclopedic. Several Times (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject fails WP:AUTH and WP:ACADEMIC. I cannot see that blog posts on the Harvard Business Review's website constitute notability as an author or academic. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This author is published by AMACOM and McGraw-Hill - comments about just being self-published on the internet are misinformed. Please see bibliography and check the references for confirmation. homermcness —Preceding undated comment added 21:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The fact that he's published doesn't indicate that his writings are significant enough to meet WP:AUTH. The subject is a blogger who has written a few text books. That doesn't convey notability. In university I was taught by professors who'd had a number of books published but I wouldn't consider them notable enough for a Wikipedia article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I feel the subject fulfills the notability guidelines within his field. The article would improve if it were better sourced. Asav (talk) 10:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article seems to have been turned down[18] several times at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Baldoni. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 14:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References cited in the article check out. Author in published in multiple languages, including Mandarin, Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese as well as Hungarian and Spanish. His work is timely and cited in management circles. [User:MonicaReview|MonicaReview] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monicareview (talk • contribs) 14:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks to all for comments. Please note I am a leadership development consultant with 10 published books by notable publishers. Yes, I blog for reputable publications, including Harvard Business Review, CBS/BNET, Bloomberg/Businessweek. My publishers view me as an authoritative source. I also consult with leading companies and have been recognized internationally for my work. All of the work cited in this article is substantiated with citations, e.g. books, periodicals, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.218.150 (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. This is a joke. The last 2 entries saying keep are from the author of the subject or his representatives. This article subject is not notable and is obvious self promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realitycheck29 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC) — Realitycheck29 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. I'm having trouble finding any clearly independent, reliable sources. Most of the hits in my Google search seem to be copying each other or some other promotional source. Someone needs to find multiple independent reliable sources, or else I'm inclined to label this a self-promotional spam article. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment I suspect there is some sock/meat puppetry in this AFD. Some of the "Keep" !votes are based on hypothetical future verification of the Harvard Business Review publications. Those sources need to be actually found. causa sui (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP after deleting the 50% of this article which is purely self promotional and unsourced self-description I think that subject can meet notability, including via. 9 published books. North8000 (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable author: 5 books published by McGrawHill/Amer Mgmt Association--with translations into Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Thai, & Korean; the most widely held, "Great communication secrets of great leaders" in over 1000 WorldCat libraries in English alone. it really puzzles me that the other 5 are essentially self-published, with minor library holdings, but that seems to fit with the mixof notability and puffery in the article. I get a certain satisfaction editing articles like this down to reason, Mike Wazowski did a first round, I'm about to do a second. The reviews will need to be added. DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the "self promotional and unsourced self-description" material noted in my "Keep" statement is now much-improved. North8000 (talk) 09:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changing vote to Keep from Weak Keep after recent cleanup. Asav (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HomeSav

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

Article was created by, and has been subject to editing by a sock puppet [19]. It was speedy nominated, and then the speedy was removed by an anon IP account. It was then prodded, and deprodded by the same anon IP account without any improvements to the article by the anon IP, so we are at AfD with the same reasoning as the Prod. It appears to fail WP:ORG. I found one detailed coverage article in CJnews. But that does not appear to amount to significant coverage. It appears too early for such an article. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of enough notable mentions that could help this on a encyclopedia. I found this mention but it isn't enough, and I didn't see anything on both Yahoo, Google, and Google News. SwisterTwister talk 05:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little indication of wp:notabiliity, and this appears to be a case where someone already worked that aspect to the max. The three references include: One article in a specialty web site, one in a blog section of a web site, and on couple-paragraph mention on a web site article that was listing companies of that type. North8000 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia. For now, it should not hurt to keep the article, judging by consensus here. — Joseph Fox 13:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slavic dialects of Greece

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

WP:CFORK mainly of Macedonian language and dialects, and also of Bulgarian language. This artificial grouping of various dialects from two different languages has absolutely no linguistic basis. The dialects discussed in the article, for the better part, are afforded scholarly linguistic analysis on their own pages (Lower Prespa dialect, Solun-Voden dialect, etc.). This is a unique case and makes as much sense as creating Slavic dialects of Italy or Slavic dialects of Hungary, etc., based on somewhat related, yet linguistically different, dialects of seperate languages. Lunch for Two (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CFORK "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject. Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided." Lunch for Two (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, Merge with Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia is acceptable per discussion below. Lunch for Two (talk) 03:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - this is an illogical nonsence. Jingby (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but consider merging with Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia, or at least re-shuffling material between these two in such a way that linguistic and political/historical material are divided more sensibly and don't get duplicated. I don't see this as a fork of Macedonian language; if anything, it's a sub-article of it. The special sociolinguistic situation of these dialects is the unifying factor here, much more than any structural dialectological unity (which, I agree, probably doesn't exist). Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, if the only unifying factor here is a socio-political one (However, again it is dealing with two distinct group one in Macedonia, the other in Thrace), then this would normally be insufficient to warrant a seperate article, overlapping with roughly 10 other articles where a scholarly approach is taken. Most of these factors are already discussed at Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia. Is extending the "Education and language" chapter on Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia sufficient to merge the two?
I dispute that it is not a fork of Macedonian language. The fact that according to the title somehow Macedonian language = Slavic dialects?, presents a pov in its own league. Lunch for Two (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete. It's an over zealous content fork and I see no merit in merging the content with Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia which should also be nominated for deletion. They are invented excuses to link the words "Slavic" with "Macedonia". Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 21:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Striking recommendation due to the nominator's extreme POV. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 23:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not see it as a fork. The article specifically says that not all of the dialects are dialects of Macedonia,but some are Bulgarian. I gather there are also dialects intermediary between those two. Apparently what language the dialects are considered to be dialects of is disputed, or at least has been called different things in different periods. The proposal to delete Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia failed, and so should this. They are both valid topics. Given the political situation with minorities in this region, I suppose politics may have a role in the formation of these articles, but it seems equally that it has a role in the desire to remove them. From the point of view of an nonspecialist, it seems a valid article. There are Slavic dialects spoken in Greece, they have the common property of being Slavic, so why not discuss their common aspects in an article under this title? The way the articles is set up is clear and aids understanding. DGG ( talk ) 12:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, you are right in saying that the langauges are both Slavic however the relationship they have between each other is not simply one language continuum. Two disparate languages (to be more precise, forms of language) have been united in the article. Speakers in Greek Macedonia form an unrecognised Christian minority group speaking dialects of the Macedonian language, whereas those speaking Slavic dialects in the region of Thrace are have recognition Muslim Pomaks speaking the Smolyan dialect of Bulgarian. The two groups themselves are completely seperate, however seem to be united (I use this in the most broad sense of the word) in this article by the fact that they both speak Eastern South Slavic dialects.

I feel that sufficient coverage is given to the political situation of the speakers at Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia whilst the dialects themselves, accompanied with linguistic analysis covering all of the dialects at Lower Prespa dialect, Prilep-Bitola dialect, Kostur dialect, Nestram-Kostenar dialect, Solun-Voden dialect and Ser-Drama-Lagadin-Nevrokop dialect. I agree with Fut. Perf's idea about merging it with Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia, which for the most part has already occured. Lunch for Two (talk) 12:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia. I agree that there is useful material here, and the main unifying theme seems to be the way that dialects of Bulgarian and Macedonian came closer together in Greece because of various pressures. But these two articles seem to me to really belong together as one (since the linguistic and cultural aspects are necessarily intertwined) — and, of course, there will be disputes over what name to use, and I have a problem with this article's title because "Slavic dialects" sounds like a put-down (using "dialect" as referring to a minor or second-class language). Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The trend of the discussion is towards keep as sources have been added. Sandstein 05:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avaya 9600 Series IP Deskphones

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

Delete. Non-notable product. We are in dire need of a prescriptive notability guideline for products so that these AfD's can be resolved easier. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 14:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

merge into an article on the product line. That's the practical guideline that we have been using for most product articles, except the famous ones. Alan, any argument why that would not be suitable? DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the absence of a specific product notability guideline we to have to resort to the general notability guidelines and the "spirit" of what the community wants to include in WP. Historic AfDs, the call by Jimmy Wales to improve the articles we already have (rather than creating stacks of new ones), the maintenance burden on a possible reducing number of experienced editors, and the need to be vigilant about SPAM by stealth are all reasons to take a hard line on product articles. I would like to see a prescriptive product notability guideline that can be used as a basis for speedy deletions. We already have such tools for biographical articles, by way of example, and it allows articles to be promptly speedily deleted. This saves the a lot of administration time for editors since there is no PRODing and AfDing, and no time wasted on building an article that may eventually be deleted.

The prescriptive notability guidelines currently in use may have developed because of the dearth of articles that didn't sort of fit in with WP. For instance being human WP editors naturally wrote a lot of bio articles leading to the creation of a whole series of prescriptive notability guidelines for such articles. The same thing should happen with products. While articles on, for example, the Apple IIe, Ford Cortina, iPod, Raleigh Twenty etc may be notable, but an article on the Avaya 9600 Series IP Deskphones is far less notable. It may be easy to have all manner of product articles referenced from trade publications and product reviews and so they will meet the general notability guideline but should they be included in WP?

So to answer your question DDG, an article on an Avaya product line is a little better than articles on the individual products, but my preference is that the Avaya article itself is devoted to their products (as recommended at WP:PRODUCT). At present the product section is a list with a template normally used as a footer jammed in it as it is at present. It should be rewitten in prose and the template removed.

I realise that I am not putting up strong AfD argument based on policy and guidelines but from a sort of philosophical, administrative and managerial perspective I feel that the previous comments weigh in favour of deleting some of the product articles on WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) -

Strictly Merge all-related to something like Avaya products: I ~~would vote keep~~ due to its notability in academic textbooks and being one-of-the largest unique voice manufacturer holding multiple awards, but multiple article have already been kept. I do believe their tone is promotional, and a large merge would be really helpful. You'll find a fun list here of tons of Avaya products that needs to be included. This AfD kept 4 more articles this week :/ ~ AdvertAdam^talk 09:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

helpful? it would amount to rejecting the possibility of providing information infavor of a mere listing. A mere listing is not encyclopedic when information is available to do more than that. DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete, delete, delete~~ (Changing to Weak Keep, see below) Trivial article with no significant independent references; Wikipedia is not a sales catalog. See my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avaya Energy Saver. It is absolutely ridiculous that every single item manufactured by Avaya has its own article at wikipedia, some of them mere catalog listings like this, others incredible bloated technical manuals like Avaya Unified Communications Management. In my opinion every item in that Avaya template should be deleted (without a redirect) in a mass housecleaning, and the various product lines should get a simple mention or at most a paragraph at Avaya. --MelanieN (talk) 04:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 100% of this is sales material / product catalog information. Once that is deleted there is no article to discuss. Also no indication of wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence the product satisfies WP:N. Wikipedia is not a catalog. And notability is not temporary. If all present gadgets for sale by big companies deserve articles, then so would every gadget EVER offered for sale, and we could have tens of thousands of articles about every individual model of cylinder phonograph, mimeograph machine, slide rule, kerosene lamp, or buggy whip ever offered for sale, (and I'm talking models, not generic devices or manufacturers) with no ref but a catalog or ad. Edison (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edison, don't you realize the suggestion is to merge individual projects. Nobody is suggesting ythis particular red herring. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alan said "I realise that I am not putting up strong AfD argument based on policy and guidelines but from a sort of philosophical, administrative and managerial perspective I feel that the previous comments weigh in favour of deleting some of the product articles on WP" -- I can only say I would like us to do just the opposite, and reaffirm the policy that we have appropriate articles and articles sections o every notable product, present and past, with the distinction between articles and sections depending on their importance. That's what an encyclopedia does, it provides information appropriate to wthe subjects that are worth readers looking for them. A catalog is different, it focuses on what the companies would lik eto sell, and their sales arguments--such material does not belong in Wikipedia. I find it very strange that to argue that there is some class of subjects which, notable or not, should not be covered in principle. I consider that straight-out bias. Alan's argument is, as he admits, contrary to policy: it amounts to IDON'TLIKEIT, and the argument and all arguments based on it should be ignored. I might as usefully argue that I think there is too much coverage of wrestlers in the world, and we should omit it. If necessary I scould add it just reproduces the promotional hype. And everyone could thus argue for omission of their least favorite subject. That would be quite a change from the basic principle of NPOV, and fortunately no one AfD can accomplish that. All that an AfD like this can do is , with its characteristically semi-random results, is to give us erratic coverage instead of reasonable merges. Nobody is arguing to have an article on " every single item manufactured by Avaya " or any other company. What is being argued for is combination articles of product lines. If this product line is thought too narrow, merge with other deskphone lines of the company. I distrust arguments that don't accept such compromises. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In order to keep an article here it must have received significant coverage from independent reliable sources. If such coverage can be found for some of these product lines, then an article on them could be justified. If not - not. Where is the independent reliable coverage on (for example) Avaya phones or Avaya routers? And if such coverage cannot be found, what is the argument for "combination articles of product lines"? If the product lines have not received such coverage, the only options are outright delete or merge to Avaya. --MelanieN (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added independent reliable coverage and evaluation testing by several companies and the Committee on National Security Systems certification documentation for just one of the 12 different models in the 9600 Series, that this page should cover.

So why do you not delete these pages without ANY third party refs or citation documentation? Cisco 837, Cisco 1000, Cisco Valet Routers, Cisco Security Manager, Cisco SSG-6510, Cisco LocalDirector, Packet Tracer, Hicom 300, Macintosh Quadra 700, Color LaserWriter 12/600 PS, Personal LaserWriter NTR, and Personal LaserWriter 300 Please treat all pages equally. Geek2003 (talk) 07:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC) ~~— Geek2003 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.~~ [reply]

I have also created Maine_Army_National_Guard, Kentucky_Army_National_Guard, Trans_Canada_Microwave, etc, ect... Geek2003 (talk) 03:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the added references. I can see you are really trying and I appreciate that. However, they are neither significant nor independent. The "Tolly Group" citations are reports commissioned by Avaya - not independent. The government links merely confirm that the phones exist - not significant coverage. Significant coverage by independent reliable sources would mean something like: a review of the specific phone model (or of Avaya phones in general, if we are trying for a product line article as suggested by USER:DGG) by an industry periodical or general-interest publication; news reports (not press releases) about the phones; etc. Something showing that someone outside of the company itself feels that the product, or product line, is noteworthy. As for the WP:OTHERSTUFF that you mentioned, those articles all have exactly the same problems - some are mere stubs - and it looks like it should all be deleted as well. Feel free to nominate them, or I may when I have more time next week. Some, such as Personal LaserWriter NTR, look like candidates for PROD since there is not even any assertion of notability. I see that most of these specific model number of product articles were created several years ago; possibly notability criteria were looser then. --MelanieN (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review my work. I have just included a book "Hacking exposed VoIP" This book has 52 pages dedicated to the testing of the 9600 series IP phones and the 4600 series IP phones, and they go through and test each of the UDP ports used and how it affects the security and functionality of the phone. Is this what you are looking for? Geek2003 (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So that is just about one particular aspect of the phone. If there multiple books about this model of phone and all aspects of the phone were discussed THEN there would be a better case for notability. I am sorry, but you are clutching at straws. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geek2003, you list products that also do not have third part refs (some of which have already been though a recent series of AfDs). You need to avoid the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Rest assured, now that you have listed them I will check them out for myself. Get ready for anther round of deletions everyone!! But seriously, WE NEED a prescriptive notability guideline for products. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, bugger it!! This is all too much! I give up on all these product deletions. There are just TOOO many of them. It seems that there is an editor out there that is keen on Apple printers. It shows one of the the disadvantages of WP. Since it has developed organically and the New Pages Patrol etc cannot keep up with it WP ends up with all sorts of systemic bias. A WP editor likes Apple printers so we get too many articles on Apple printers. Someone likes Avaya and Nortel products so we get too many articles about them. There are too many computer geeks (I was one once) on WP so we get too much stuff about computer related stuff. WP is getting REAL BIG and it is getting REAL HARD to know if we are getting the right mix of article. There are valiant attempts to do this but it is happening at a higher level in the article importance hierarchy than at the level of individual products. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, don't give up! We can do this! I just prodded all the black-and-white LaserWriter models - 18 of them - after inserting a mention of each of them into the article LaserWriter. If they stay prodded this could be a way of merging that information into a far more useful and encyclopedic format. --MelanieN (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

added citations several - significant and independent citations with in-depth review of the 9600 systems are now added to this page. Geek2003 (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing my opinion to Weak keep based on the improvements made by Geek2003. The latest addition to the article consists of three reviews or articles by three different independent sources - Network World, Network Computing, and eWeek. Those are industry-specific sources rather than general interest, but at least they are independent reports written by staff at the sources. Also, the article has been modified so that it no longer reads like a catalog entry. --MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
additional copy edit added more citations and content to increase WP:NOTABLE and improved encyclopedic value. Geek2003 (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Lots of sources just applied and undiscussed. Let's get some more input before closing. BusterD (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the refs are not suitable ie. ~~blogs~~ and from Avaya themselves. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

News blog are allowed - WP:NEWSBLOG. Geek2003 (talk) 06:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed blog refs and Avaya refs; added many more refs; now 24 good citations Geek2003 (talk) 01:39, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good citations. 174.79.190.194 (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good citations does not necessarily mean that the topic is sufficiently notable for inclusion in WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment History section added and now the page covers 15 different phone models, with 27 in-line citations. Geek2003 (talk) 02:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The product satisfies WP:42 requirements for WP:NOTABILITY. If it does not explain exactly, in detail what is needed so I can improve it. Geek2003 (talk) 02:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple references that provide in depth reporting on this product. Bigtex 1 (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The 9600 series is a Notable Product . It is unique in its ability to support built in VPN. This is a first of a kind that could be deployed anywhere. Meets the criteria of WP:NOTABILITY

Keep 3 Network World citation;1 Tata Mcgraw Hill and a Journal Citation. The article is WP:Notable.Machismo500 (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Simply having suitable references is not the only requirement for a WP article. The topic must be notable in the long term, ie. notability is not temporary. An IP deskphone has as much long term reliability as a colour tv or a CB radio. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My Little Pony: Fighting Is Magic

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

As much as I wanted to be neutral in this, I am struggling to see how this article could be notable despite sources from Gameland (Russian), The Escapist, and GamePro. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 13:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an alternative because of the sourcing, I don't mind any request for userfication if made. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 13:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep _{(as article creator and sole contributor)} The game is notable as a professional quality, fan man game. You have the sources there that have picked up on that and have covered it. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 14:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see multiple reliable sources with non-trivial mentions. Basic WP:GNG satisfied, ergo notable. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I was tempted to nominate this myself as it is a fan project without any set release date, but the fact that there are presently 3 reliable sources that discuss the work do make it notable, albeit weakly. It is possible that this could be redirected to the main MLP:FIM article since, within context of the fandom of the show, this could be called out, should this discussion trend towards deletion. --MASEM (t) 15:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic. A few sources reporting on this as a novelty doesn't make it a notable project; this is a good time to apply WP:NOTNEWS. Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree... Merge. This seems to often be the approach for video games and other adaptations of larger works that aren't notable enough to warrant their own article. I'll leave a comment on the show's article's talk page notifying them of this discussion. Bobnorwal (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article should definitely not be merged. It's a fan game, and I feel like giving it mention on the page of an extremely popular TV show could make some people very upset. At the moment, though the article is very short, it already has a lot of citation and sources related to it. I vote to keep it, mostly for the fact that after the game is actually released, I imagine there will be a lot more information and traffic to the page. Omicron Austin (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant withdrawal after looking at the comments. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 00:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Stonehouse

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

Subject lacks notability: no notable fights, no fights with notable promotions/organizations, has only an appearance on one episode of a reality TV show. TreyGeek (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —TreyGeek (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —TreyGeek (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nominator has it right. Clearly fails WP:MMANOT and there's nothing else to show notability. Astudent0 (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No fights for a top tier (or even second tier) MMA organization. Lacks significant coverage and fails WP:MMANOT. Even his record is questionable--according to the source given he fought as an amateur then as a professional then as an amateur again and now he's back to being a professional. Papaursa (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet notability standards. Jakejr (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 19:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin J. Kennedy

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

Delete per WP:ANYBIO -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 13:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CEO of a very major company such as Avaya is notable. That position meets the ANYBIO specification of "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." The chief executives of such companies are part of the historical record, and are always discussed extensive in the books that are written about the company, though it is not reasonable to expect such book coverage of the present ceo, ANYBIO was given as the only argument for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Avaya. It is not true that the president of a notable company inherits that notability. Being tapped as CEO is not "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." This CV does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO. I can't call it a biography, since so much basic info is missing. Apparently he sprang into existence the day he first got a college degree, and had no birthplace, birth date or family. Edison (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Search of Google News archive from the year 2000 to the present shows 100 clips, demonstrating significant coverage in publications such as InformationWeek. Here's his Forbes profile. Kennedy is also a member of the President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee (see here). Definitely notable. The article is in pretty bad shape, so I think time permitting I'll expand it. Neutrality^talk 20:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment"Definitely notable" because he is a member of a nonnotable committee? I disagree. The raw number of GNews hits is not a valid index of notability. Many of them derive from such things as a company's press release that the guy is coming on board or is leaving, and the raw number vastly overstates the notability. Others are passing references ("Joe Blow will report to Kevin Kennedy") or have a brief quote from him, not really an indication of notability. Do any actually provide biographic information rather than resumé (education and jobs) information? The best (for notability) articles should be independent (not a press release or a thinly veiled reprint of one) and have coverage of him, not just a quote about the company from him. Could you also take a look at Charles Giancarlo, a similarly anemic bio article about another CEO of the same company, but whose AFD was closed after only one day? Edison (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did you read any of the material? The Forbes profile is full of biographical data. The news articles (in multiple languages) do indeed include many quotes from Kennedy, but they also include many articles for which he is the main focus. As for that "non-notable" committee, we actually have an article on the office to which it belongs. (The presidential advisory committee he's on is a pretty big signifier of prominence - take a look at some of the other committee members, who are all very high-level telecom executives for which we already have articles: Dan Hesse, Clayton M. Jones, Edward Mueller, Ivan G. Seidenberg, William H. Swanson). Want more sources? Here he is being interviewed on CNBC. Here is is as the major focus of a Reuters article. Here he is giving the keynote address at Enterprise Connect, the big annual convention. Here he is in an interview with InfoWorld. Here he is in an article with Forbes on his strategy to beat Cisco. Here he is in an interview with CRN Magazine. This is an easy call. Neutrality^talk 00:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Did you actually read the Forbes "profile?" It is nothing but another resumé. It reads like he is applying for a job. Where does it or the other proferred references mention his parents, his birthdate, or his home town, all of which are essential information for a purported "biography?" He cannot "inherit notability" from other members of some committee he was on. Which of the "100's" of articles actually have him as the "main focus," or provide "significant coverage " of him as required by WP:BIO and WP:N? Quotes from him about the company are inadequate to prove he is notable, and only suggest that perhaps he should be mentioned in the article about the company, to furnish information about it. Then you offer a ref from CNBC via Avaya, where he talks about one of their gadgets. The interview is about the gadget, not about HIM. The next article you offer, from Reuters, is about an acquisition by Avaya, not about the man at all. The keynote reproduced from some website called "nojitter" (reliable source?)is about something called the "SIP" interface, and says nothing about the man in question. The interview at Infoworld was about the company's "collaboration strategy" and not about Kennedy. We learned zero about him. The Forbes article shows him holding a laptop, but tells us nothing about him at all. The CRN piece is the text of a speech he gave at his company about business strategy, and is not really about the man, nor is it remotely an "independent" source. Is "CRN" a reliable source in any event? More than foot stomping and hand waving is needed to substantiate claims of notability. I agree that it is an easy call. "Delete" or perhaps "Merge" to the article about the company. Edison (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am genuinely astonished. It seems that no matter what sources I show, all are dismissed. The many reliable, detailed sources that prominently feature Kennedy in relation to Avaya are dismissed as being "about the company, not about him." And the many reliable, detailed sources that deal specifically with him (like the Forbes profile previously linked and - here's a new one - this profile on BusinessWeek) are dismissed as being "like a resumé." First of all, I'm not sure what artificial distinction you are drawing between "biographic information" and a "resume." These profiles by Forbes and BusinessWeek aren't random self-published pieces taken from Monster.com; these are from reputable publications and include tons of information about Kennedy's education; his past positions; his membership on various corporate boards; his compensation, and so on. If you want more "personal" information, there's a post on McGee-Smith Analytics on Kennedy's background, his friends, and even his Irish background (!) As for an individual's parents, birthdate, and hometown being "essential information" - there is no absolutely no policy to support that claim. That info is nice to have, and should be included when it can be properly referenced, but it's not "essential" to make an article notable, especially when there is an enormous wealth of other information about the individual. As to reliability of sources, as anyone who takes the few minutes to look them up can see, NoJitter.com (formerly Business Communications Review magazine) and CRN Magazine are a blog and a trade publication, respectively, by UBM plc. They conduct original reporting and appear to be reputable trade publications. BCR appears to have been published for many years. Neutrality^talk 05:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for taking the time to post additional thoughts. I'll take your word that the "nojitter" and BCR are RS. The profiles are just bits of business resumé. The articles which have some in-depth coverage of his business career such as the 2008 nojitter are of some use in supporting notability. I object to a biography which only contains information about someone's work at a particular company. If no reliable sources have talked about his life outside his college credentials and his high level business positions, then I question his notability. If we take some other business leaders of the past, say Henry Ford or George Westinghouse, lots of complete bio information has been published. Or consider modern business figures like Warren Buffet or Steve Jobs. We learn about their birthdate, their parents, their hometown. They do not spring to life the day they completed their education as does Kevin Kennedy. If the published information is restricted to his college degree through his present business position, then it is appropriate to mention him in the article about the company, to avoid having a plethora of "vanity corporate biography" resumé-stubs. These are horribly selective, and promotional in tone, and when they are all that has been published, sources are lacking for a balanced biographical article. If being head of a company of a certain size provides "inherent notability," comparable to having certain levels of political office, then WP:BIO should be modified to state as much. Edison (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for continuing the discussion. I think it is really excellent that we have people making robust challenges to articles, and even though I disagree I really respect that you have taken the time to discuss. There is little left to write that I have not already exhausted above. You write that you "question his notability" because "no reliable sources have talked about his life outside...his high level business positions." My response is: He is notable because of his high-level business positions; he doesn't require extensive additional coverage of his non-business pursuits to make him notable. We wouldn't delete Butch Otter because "no reliable sources have talked about his life outside his political positions"; we wouldn't delete Patty Griffin because "no reliable sources have talked about her life outside of her entertainment industry pursuits." I suppose we have to agree to disagree here. Neutrality^talk 05:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep He is a multimillionaire (Forbes cites 5.9 million for just 2009 just from Avaya), a business person on the board of directors of several large companies and an author. I have added several citations and additional content; I agree that we need to add additional content and citations. There are thousands of them, I just added a few, and will add more later. Geek2003 (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SM City Tungko

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

only mention of its existence is an article which mentions it besides the plan of an MRT Station in San Jose del Monte which the editor who added it placed in SM Supermalls Rxlxm (talk) 06:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to redirect. Crystalballery.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:CRYSTAL. PaintedCarpet (talk) 03:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and consider deleting most of the many articles on even the actually built small SM shopping centers, One article about the chain should do it, and the rest is for their web site. these articles are the quintessence of NOT DIREcTORY. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Rlendog (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Giancarlo

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

Delete per WP:ANYBIO. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 13:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Look at the 775 GNews hits. Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CEO of a very major company such as Avaya is notable. That position meets the ANYBIO specification of "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." The chief executives of such companies are part of the historical record, and are always discussed extensive in the books that are written about the company, though it is not reasonable to expect such book coverage of the present ceo, ANYBIO was given as the only argument for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 18:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems notable to me as well. --Kumioko (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bigfoot#Hoaxes. Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 04:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Whitton

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

In my opinion, this is a perfect example of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. This person is known for one event only: being part of a bigfoot hoax in 2008. While the hoax garnered national attention and possibly deserves an article unto itself, I don't believe this person is notable is his own right, as he is not known for anything other than the hoax. I should note that a merge tag has been on the article since its creation in 2008, but I couldn't find any discussion of it in the talk page archives, and anyway I don't think merging to the Bigfoot article is an option. One hoaxer is just not notable in the grand scheme of the bigfoot legend. SheepNotGoats (talk) 13:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We could rename this article and edit it into an article about the hoax which would give us a place to redirect the current name to. Is the hoax significant enough to keep if we did? RJFJR (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I don't know. For a 2-3 week period in 2008, the event received a HUGE amount of news coverage, but it does not appear to have gotten any significant coverage since then (news coverage pretty much dropped off immediately after it was discovered to be a hoax), making me think it doesn't have any lasting notability. But I tend to lean to the deletionist side of things, so take my opinion with a grain of salt :) It's also worth noting that the hoax is mentioned in some detail in the Tom Biscardi article, because he basically was the mastermind behind it, and he is known for perpetuating bigfoot hoaxes in the past. Would redirecting Whitton to Biscardi's article be an option? SheepNotGoats (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bigfoot#Hoaxes, where he's already mentioned. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename, yes it is a hoax that should be having its own article in my opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bigfoot#Hoaxes Stuartyeates (talk) 07:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Agree with the OP. He had a burst of news in 2008 but is otherwise low-profile. There is not extended coverage of him in any books or a documentary that I have found. MadCow257 (talk) 02:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect / merge per above. North8000 (talk) 17:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Avaya. Courcelles 18:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avaya ERS-4500 Systems

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

Delete. Non-notable product that is wholly sourced from the manufacturers data. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 12:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The user:Alan Liefting has nominated almost all the pages belonging to Avaya for deletion, over the last 2 weeks. This looks like user bias. Geek2003 (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. I could make an accusation that you are using WP as a vehicle to promote Avaya products - but I won't. Maybe you are simply an enthusiastic editor who so happens to like Avaya products... And please give a justification for your rationale to keep the article. And have I nominated "almost all the pages belonging to Avaya"? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 13:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, do the pages belong to Avaya??? Jsharpminor (talk) 07:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to think it is sloppy language rather than ownership of the pages by Avaya. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User user:Alan Liefting has nominated 15 pages for deletion in less than 2 hours today that are all part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Nortel which I am a member of. I would like assistance in correcting or expanding the pages instead of deleting them. Any feedback/assistance is welcomed. Geek2003 (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge And clarify that Avaya is not the lone "victim". The computer technology articles are a somewhat haphazard collection. There seems a general movement to go from articles on individual products that are just cut-n-paste of a spec sheet into more historical narratives covering how a product line evolved through the years. At least this is what I generally favor. We are also doing it with some of standards articles that often can be consolidated into fewer but better sourced and more complete ones. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia and not a product catalog. In this case, the content is just a statement of the specs and a table sourced by company spec sheets and a press release. Not even a mention as to when they were announced or delivered. I would say one article on the Ethernet switches made by Nortel and Avaya. Other "series" articles have a better chance to stick around. It is a stretch to say the 4500 is a series, since they seem to be a single design, just with some models de-populated. This is common to many other vendors' products, using the normal Broadcom or Marvell chips. See Dell PowerConnect for example (although that one is also rough). The problem is this takes time compared to the simple "one product" article, so they tend to just get deleted. W Nowicki (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and use as the basis for an article of larger scope. Major product lines from major companies are notable. But the correct level of aggregation is normally the product line, and, if W Nowicki is correct, as seems probable, this is not the correct level--perhaps the best way of proceeding would be to use this as the start of an article of Avaya Ethernet switches. Such would be the proper level--merging to the main article on the company is impractical for such very large companies as this. It would yield an unmanageable article, and the coverage of the products would degenerate into a mere list, which is not encyclopedic, as it wouldn't have any actual information. The actual contents here is not excessive detail; a summary of the basic features is encyclopedic content, to distinguish one model from another. A catalog page, which I think we all agree we do not want, would include everything. DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a catalog. Lacks independent and reliable sources to support notability. Edison (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

performed copy edit and added many 3rd party refs to provide WP:NOTABILITY. Geek2003 (talk) 03:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep informatrional not promotional WP:NOTABLE review notable refs. 108.110.185.190 (talk) 07:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This "keep" vote is from the author.

Delete / merge Jsharpminor (talk) 07:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Avaya. Lots of those refs are from Tolly Enterprises, LLC searching for that name seems to bring back lots of Avaya pages. I suspect that there is a business relationship between Avaya and Tolly, despite their webpages using the word independent a great many times. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at their web site, it's a wholly unjustified aspersion. They seem rather exactly the model of the sort of site that would review these items. They are clearly not affiliated with any particular company. Rejecting such sites as not independent leaves essentially no possible references that could ever be used for this sort of products, and amounts to saying that these products are non-notable, because it is intrinsically impossible that anyone will ever write about them objectively. I don't think Wikipedia makes this sort of flat-out rejection for any class of articles. Myself, I do not think anyone has ever written from a truly neutral independent POV on religion or politics; where would such criteria for sources leave us? DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added citations from the Defense Information Systems Agency. Geek2003 (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cooke Collegians Cricket Club

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

This club falls into exactly the same category as those discussed at here,here,here, here,here,here, here and here. It plays at the second tier of a provincial league in Ireland, the article lacks sources to pass WP:GNG. The recent Cup success is in a subsidiary competition, the principal one being the Senior Cup. Sitush (talk) 12:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage of the club's activities (small error in the nomination, it plays in the third not second tier). Mt king ^(edits) 21:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for that error. Brain fart. - Sitush (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gothoskar

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

Last names may be inherently notable (?) but this article has been uncited for three years and is making very specific claims about origin. If those claims are removed then there is nothing left to the article other than "Gothoskar is a last name". Sitush (talk) 12:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find sources substantiating the claims about the surname in the current article, nor was I able to find any general etymology information about this family name. Of course, we have articles about last names, like Smith (surname), but there just isn't any reasonable sources that could make this into an article. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Singing Adams

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

The prod was a removed and one CD review was added. The review even says, "he's going to languish on in relative obscurity." Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 12:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Given that this is a project of the former frontman of a notable band, deletion is clearly not the best option here. There is more coverage out there ([20], [21]), and even if it can't be expanded significantly it would still be appropriate to merge it to a section of The Broken Family Band.--Michig (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are thin and don't give him enough standing notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nothing in the discussion indicates any objection to creating a redirect if an appropriate target can be found. Rlendog (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avaya Auto Unit Replacement

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

Delete per WP:NOTMANUAL -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 12:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to indicate this capability or technique is notable, and Wikipedia is not intended to be a collection of "how-to" technical information. Edison (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge or redirect at least redirect to the closest page of the company's software products, if there's one to be found--I'm not at all sure there will be a good place to merge to. I note the delete criterion used does not apply, and I could have left it at that, because this is nowhere near the detail that one would find in a software manual, or even a good advertisement. The real reason it isn't suitable for a separate article is that it is a not particularly important software component or feature, not a separate product, and there are therefore unlikely to be sources that meet any notability. Using the first criterion that comes to mind is not a good indication of looking for alternatives according to WP:Deletion Policy DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nortel keycode

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

Delete per WP:NOTMANUAL -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A detailed "how-to" is inappropriate for Wikipedia, and the process does not have evidence of notability from independent sources. Edison (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not in any sense a detailed how-to, but just a relatively general description--but its the description of a routine software component, that appears to have no special features, and does ot justify an article. DGG ( talk ) 07:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to Avaya. The Avaya article is not excessively long and already contains a few relevant lists, so merging should not be a problem. Rlendog (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Avaya patents

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

Delete. per WP:NOTDIR -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Avaya. What is presented here is well sourced and would help out the main article. Them From Space 16:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as what amounts to an index page, which would be helpful to users. Merging material such as this into the main article for a company as large as Nortel would be excessive. Incidentally, it just might be possible to write individual articles on some of these patents, especially if they have been the subject of litigation. I'm not about to do it, though. DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There 4 notable patents in this list. Not excessive for a merge. Split if there's substantively more material. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: We shouldn't keep this separate article, because it will always be a really brief stub with very little to expand without summarizing gargantuan primary sources. But seems to be a valid supplement to the main Avaya article. Dzlife (talk) 14:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Felicity Jurd

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

Seems to be written as a CV but there are also notability issues - of the sources listed that I am able to view there is either a passing mention of the subject or no mention at all, other sources are primary/database entries. I am unable to find anything resembling the significant coverage required to support an article. Яehevkor ✉ 11:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that some of the sources are website/database entries. Many of the websites are company listed websites however the press listed in references are notable press listings and verfied with bonafide press clippings on the official website [22], [23], [24] I believe the note was put on wikipedia in May before the source material was added in July which explains the questioning of the source material note which was added in May. Kjmelf (talk) 13:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the problem is that there are no references that are at once both independent and in-depth. That is, all of the in-depth references are written by the subject and/or official representatives there of (that is, personal website, press releases, etc.) OR they are extremely trivial in nature (that is, where her name may be mentioned, but where her life and work is not discussed explicitly in the sort of detail that WP:N requires). Having a bunch of press clippings which name her various jobs, coupled with self-published autobiographical information, does not really meet WP:N standards. What is needed is sources which simultaneously very in-depth AND which have no personal affiliation to the subject. --Jayron32 16:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a close case, but I think the independent sourcing is enough to demonstrate that she meets WP:ENT. We can't expect, and shouldn't demand, Kardashian-like coverage for every working performer out there; often the work, not the life, is what's significant for an encyclopedia. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to make a little point: the sourcing merely proves she has a job. Working as a performer does not make one automatically notable. You can prove anyone has just about any job using the modern internet, it doesn't necessarily mean they are notable at that job. That's why the "Significant coverage" clause is in WP:N. Now, one may argue that the existing coverage is significant (I am arguing that it isn't, but argueing that it is would be well within the spirit of having a guideline-and-policy based discussion). However, claiming that ones job title somehow exempts someone from the basic WP:N standards (which is what your argument reads like) probably isn't a very convincing argument for the closing admin to give weight to. --Jayron32 22:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am inclined to agree with Jayron32 with regard to the point about notable work, however have seen many Wikipedia pages with less source material for performers who have very few credits to their names. in this case, the subject has had professional acting credits since 1984 as validated on IMdB. Being a notable performer is perhaps under consideration here, but the source material is valid and more extensive than most performers paegs. I guess the final choice will be with wikipedia editor on whether to keep or delete...could go either way 80.169.201.244 (talk) 10:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ENT (doesn't appear to meet any of the guidelines for entertainers). Lots of roles, but no indication that she's had any significant role in any notable production. Her character in the two Aussie TV series with their own WP articles isn't mentioned in those articles, so one must assume she had only minor, occasional roles. Note that IMDb is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia, and arguments of the form "other people with less than this have WP articles" fail per WP:WAX. Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of notability at this stage 80.169.201.244 (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've advised the page creator of this AFD as this had not yet been done. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

(I relisted because of the late notification--I have no opinion on the article.) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject hasn't performed in significant enough roles to meet WP:ACTOR. The fact that an uncredited film role is in the lead sentence is a good example of this. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Essentially a recreation of material deleted in a previous AFD discussion. CSD G4. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2greendollars

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

Does not meet Wikipedia:Notability guidelines on most, if not all, counts. Has been previously deleted three times under Anthony_Chidiac. User:Avatera also almost certainly a sock puppet of User:Achidiac due to similar claims on user page of Avatera and Early Life section of 2greendollars article. Closest overhead (talk) 10:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as re-creation of previously deleted material. The text here is very similar to the last deleted versions (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Chidiac, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Chidiac (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Chidiac (3rd nomination), in the same style laced with puffery; the only substantial change has been the movement of external links to footnotes. So tagging. Recommend salting this and all other variants of the names. Note also that prior discussions featured busy sockpuppets. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notable mentions, media coverage in general. I didn't see any links on Google and Yahoo showing that this person has achieved notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted CSD A1 by User:Causa sui (NAC). Mt king ^(edits) 22:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Big Bash League auction

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Big Bash League auction (2nd nomination)

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

Unreferenced player auction which, as far as I can find, never actually occurred - rather players were individually signed by teams. Ignorant Armies^?! 10:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Ignorant Armies^?! 10:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Ignorant Armies^?! 10:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Ignorant Armies^?! 10:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as Hoax, this never happened. Mt king ^(edits) 21:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete; any coverage is based on WP:ONEEVENT. There is agreement that it would be appropriate to mention this person/event within another article, if a suitable such article exists (which seems questionable at best). If such an addition is made to another article, I don't think there would be any problem with using this title as a redirect to that article. Rlendog (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Handl

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

Completely and totally obvious one-event non-notable person Dendlai (talk) 10:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Completely covered by world wide press. Highly unusual with home experimentation at this level with nuclear processes. And similar to David Hahn. Electron9 (talk) 10:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh. Check WP:ONEEVENT. And... really... You think this is encyclopediae-worthy? That's not even mentioning the current, and likely future, BLP concerns. Dendlai (talk) 10:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, now only ~350 people per day reads the article. I guess it's completely uninteresting.. Electron9 (talk) 03:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One event, sure, but that guideline specifically refers to whether you cover an individual separately, or only as part of a greater article. In this case, there is no greater article. It may be appropriate to morph the article into something more general and rename it, but given this was a somewhat unusual event I don't know you could generalise it. Regardless, that would be a cleanup issue; deletion does not seem to be the way to go. RichardOSmith (talk) 10:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no greater article because it was a very tiny event; a curiousity. Hence why it is so non-notable.Dendlai (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the extent of the international coverage it received suggests it is notable. So my only concern is how best to include it; I think there is no doubt that we should. RichardOSmith (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One event with no lasting impact, no damage (collateral or otherwise), and no victims. Subject not notable for any other reason either. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 11:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Run-of-the-mill WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLP1E, and so on. Simply being in the news for a time is not a valid rebuttal to either of these. Tarc (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in this instance Tarc's right on the money. Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A pure NOTNEWS case. The news event itself isn't even significant enough to bring BLP1E into play (and the guy's probably lucky about the "BLP" part). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS says "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia". I fail to see how that covers this case. Further more, articles such as this one are now analysing the event and putting it into historical context - this goes beyond mere news reporting. RichardOSmith (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If something has actually happened, like he blew himself or others up accidentally or something to that effect, then there would probably be a case for keeping the article. (Though it would probably need to be an article on the incident and not the person). But nothing happened. Nothing at all. He was arrested, end of story. There's nothing encyclopedic here. Silver seren^C 00:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. There might be another article where a sentence or two would be appropriate on the subject, considering the news it did get. But that's it. Not sure what article would be appropriate though. Silver seren^C 00:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Such rare unusual reactor building people should surely be noted. Nbr (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Perhaps we need a single notability guideline for WP:N (reactor building people). Tarc (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete - author requested speedy deletion or blanked the page. Joe Chill (talk) 04:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caditor

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

Software package that is no longer in development (see [25] ), has had multiple issues for more than two years and have no independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not really notable as it is only referenced from blogs which Wikipedia does not consider to be reliable sources. ALK (Talk) 00:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notable sources that could aid this article on an encyclopedia, as I didn't find any good mentions on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 05:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seajet

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

Advertizing. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. Non-notable manufacturer of a full range of yacht paint products. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDY and WP:RS. Additionally, note that the creator and primary editor of the article is a WP:SPA. Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Osmanoğlu family. causa sui (talk) 16:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orhan Murad Osmanoğlu

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

Walled garden of articles about a family of fourth- and fifth-generation descendants of a former ruling dynasty. All created by one single-purpose account, probably autobiographical. See precedent at already-deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osman Selaheddin Osmanoğlu. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. All of these persons are or were unremarkable private citizens, with no public role and no public attention on them; no substantial independent sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are some printed sources (except Burke's Royal Families of the World: Africa & the Middle East, family tree in Harrap's An Encyclopedia of World History:) mentioned to Mahmud Namık (Mahmud Namik, Mahmut Namık):

1. Hanzâde Sultanefendi, Mehmet Ferit Ulusoy, İsmet Bozdağ, Osmanlı Hanedanı Saray Notları 3, Tekin Yayınları, ISBN 9789754782226, p. 25.

2. Belleten, Vol. 70, Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 2007, p. 582.

3. Murat Bardakçı, Son Osmanlılar: Osmanlı Hanedanının Sürgün ve Miras Öyküsü, Gri Yayınları, 1991, ISBN 9789757652137, pp. 58-60.

-- Takabeg (talk) 08:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At present, Delete Mahmud Namık Osmanoğlu, Orhan Murad Osmanoğlu, Selim Süleyman Osmanoğlu, Ayşe Gülnev Osmanoğlu, Ömer Abdülmecid Osmanoğlu -- Takabeg (talk) 09:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source links. From number (1) I can see only a snippet, which looks like a mere passing remark mentioning Mahmut Namık. The book seems to be primarily about a period of history (1908/09) when Namık wasn't even born yet, so can you figure out what it is actually saying about him? (2) also looks like a passing remark mentioning Mahmut Namık among the grandchildren of Sultan Mehmed Reşad. (3) Murat Bardakçı's book about the "Last Ottomans" would seem to be the only source here that comes close to anything substantial, but can you verify he's really treating Namık as a biographical subject of more than passing interest? (And even if he did, we'd still not have multiple non-trivial coverage). Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — Takabeg (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect all to a new article Osmanoğlu family. --Lambiam 09:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are multiple other pages on people with the same level of notability e.g. Franz, Duke of Bavaria, Prince Robert, Count of La Marche, Prince Foulques, Duke of Aumale, Prince Bertrand of Orléans-Braganza. Why remove these ones and not the others?--MissyMaddie (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't checked all those other cases, but each of them needs to be judged on its own merits, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-type arguments won't help us a lot here. It all depends on how much of a public figure somebody is and how much published coverage there is. Some former ruling houses are still very much in the public eye (due to wealth, ongoing involvement in social or political affairs, society "celebrity" status, scandals, relations with other houses that are still ruling, or whatever other reasons). Some are not. Prince Robert, Count of La Marche seems like a plausible deletion candidate to me at first sight; Franz, Duke of Bavaria has quite a few public roles which might even make him meet notability standards independently of his nobility status. There is certainly no general rule that all descendants of ruling houses are automatically included; I remember quite a few similar deletion cases we've had. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - That makes sense. I support Lambian's idea of merging them all into Osmanoglu Family. Some members of the family are active in current Turkish politics so that would be relevant too.--MissyMaddie (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is an article about the House of Osman, however, it doesn't deal with the family but an administrative concept of the Ottoman Empire. Nonetheless the proper title is House of Osmanoglu.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 21:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to a new article to be called Ottoman Imperial Family (along the lines of Greek Royal Family, Bulgarian Royal Family, Romanian Royal Family etc). Some notability is evident from some of the 'find sources' options but perhaps not enough for individual entries at present. - dwc lr (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for Mahmud Namık (Mahmut Namık, Mahmud Namik etc...) some of his episodes can establish his notability. Takabeg (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The "precedent" cited is not a precedent for this case. That article was deleted as an unreferenced BLP. Nightw 08:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for the record, the Osman Selaheddin Osmanoğlu case I cited as a precedent was extremely similar to the ones here (IIRC, he's the father of several of the younger family members in this batch). It was essentially the same situation, both in terms of article content and sourcing and in terms of the nomination argument. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into House of Osmanoğlu as suggested by other editors. Unless their individual actions have been notable enough to talk about (doubtful), their relation to one-another and to the Osman dynasty can be described a single article. Nightw 08:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The term Osmanoğlu family (and in Turkey the Turkish equivalent Osmanoğlu ailesi) is commonly used, but (as far as I know) the term House of Osmanoğlu is nowhere in use other than in this discussion. --Lambiam 13:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both. Rlendog (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avaneesh Nirjar

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

Avaneesh Nirjar and Alok Bansal are officers of PolicyBazaar, an internet-based company that aggregates insurance info in India. Unable to find anything on either person outside of articles that just mention them as part of the company. Creating editor only has created four articles, these two, president of the company and the company itself. I'm not nominating the president of the company, Yashish Dahiya as there are a few more articles about him. Bgwhite (talk) 07:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notable, as I didn't see any on both Google and Yahoo aside from social networking sites, Linkedin and this very small mention here. SwisterTwister talk 20:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. Beagel (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Joseph Fox 00:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UserInfuser

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

Only apparent coverage appears to be on TNW which is a not about it's release without any content that suggests the write has used or seen the software in action. Can't find any independent coverage on either the product of the company on google. In short fails completely to meet WP:GNG Stuartyeates (talk) 07:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination clearly it was for the wrong page. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the confusion between User... and User:... Stuartyeates (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content into Gamification. There's not enough sourcing for a stand-alone article but the system technical description (the article's last paragraph) is interesting. Diego (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 08:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and oppose merge. There is no coverage in reliable sources about this particular bit of software. -- Whpq (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesselynn Desmond

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

The references I checked don't mention her, a Google news search turns up one person with her name who won a shouting contest, not clear if it's the same person. Looks like she fails our criteria for notability. Dougweller (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the news article is about her, however I went over her resume and while she does appear to be a great actress she has yet to do anything notable. jorgenev 06:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't see any links on Google and Yahoo! that could help the article biographically. SwisterTwister talk 20:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete; while there are certainly sources which allow some bits and bobs to pass WP:V, the same cannot be said of sources which provide the "significant" coverage required by WP:ORG. Ironholds (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

C.R.Kennedy & Company Pty Ltd

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/C.R.Kennedy & Company Pty Ltd

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

Promo article for a non-notable firm. A7 was declined because it's a "major company", which it clearly is not. Miracle Pen (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree that this company is clearly a minor company, not to mention I didn't get ANY notable links on both Yahoo! and Google.Keep - The article has been provided with more sources than before, so I think the article should be good for now. SwisterTwister talk 01:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But the article still fails WP:ORG. The number of references isn't the problem, notability is. Miracle Pen (talk) 07:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reading through the references added, could not call them significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Passing mentions, routine transactions, press releases, nothing independent of depth.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem is not a lack of references. The problem is that the company fails WP:ORG. It's not notable - it's an obscure camera distributor in Australia. The references (thanks for your work anyway, Eastmain) prove it - all of them are the sort of irrelevancies 137.122.49.102 lists. Miracle Pen (talk) 07:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable minor company. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Hamida Barmaki. Courcelles 00:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Masood Yama

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

Delete. Non-notable surgeon, much of the article content is unsourced. His co-deceased wife may have been notable, but WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. The article fails WP:VICTIM and WP:GNG. WWGB (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 02:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 02:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hamida Barmaki, the article about his wife. He does not appear to be notable enough for his own article, but he certainly deserves a mention there. --MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Masayoshi Yamaguchi

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

Autobiographical article. No reliable third-party coverage demonstrating notability or substantiating any of the claims made. --DAJF (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —DAJF (talk) 00:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject appears to have a GS h index of around 40, comparable to those of some Nobel Prize winners and giving a clear pass of WP:Prof#C1. Please will the nominator explain why he did not take this matter into account. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I did not take the "GS h index" you describe into account because I was not aware of it. WP:Prof#C1 does however require that notability be "demonstrated by independent reliable sources", of which there is still none. --DAJF (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When an egregious mistake is made a gracious withdrawal is always possible as here. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

"Egregious mistake" seems like a silly characterization. There are colorable arguments to be made in both directions. Although for myself I lean keep (for an article in properly-referenced form), it still seems to be that pointed questions such as "Would the nominator please explain why she/he didn't do XYZ before nominating??" don't advance the discussion at all. Nomination was made in good faith, with an entirely proper rationale (no reliable third-party coverage); no reason to jump all over the nominator. All the best --Neutrality^talk 00:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before proposing an article for deletion, nominators are expected to carry out WP:Before, in this case on the basis of WP:Prof. A well-constructed example is here. No accusations of bad faith were made. The issue is competence and adherence to policy. When an AfD is proposed, an extra workload is placed on editors who operate in the relevant area and it is helpful to them if WP:Before is carried out effectively. It is disappointing the nominator has not seen fit to respond. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep per the very high number of citations of his papers and publications (Citation counts per this page on Google Scholar): 216 citations, 129 citations, 127 citations, 103 citations, 100 citations, 96 citations, 91 citations, 76 citations, 82 citations, 87 citations, and so on). He very clearly has "made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." (WP:Prof#C1) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 02:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have in the past and today again removed multiple vanity scam "awards" from this article, from the International Biographical Centre, United Cultural Convention, etc. I am not convinced of the reality of the remaining listed awards. He may well pass WP:PROF#C1 but I think the article should be stripped down to only the parts that can be adequately sourced. I don't know j-global (the only source currently listed); is it itself something that publishes information with some sort of editorial control, or is it just a news scraper? —David Eppstein (talk) 03:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks to be a site which collates information from a variety of selected sources (you can see them listed here). It should be noted that the Japan Science and Technology Agency is a governmental agency (here's their English-language page), so I suspect it's reliable information. It looks like their page on Yamaguchi is basically a brief biographical sketch, with basic CV info. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 04:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Emory is a first-rank university, and being a Visiting Professor there is a strong sign of notability. The credits list for him there [26] make out a strong case for WP:PROF. You're up, Dekkappai. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Two relists didn't bring much more in the way of comments, there isn't really consensus to do anything here so we default to keep. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hatten är din

AfDs for this article:

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

Despite being saved during its first AfD, the article is not up to scratch. There are tags from 5 years ago which have clearly been ignored. It is not a known, notable, or (in)famous meme. There are citation concerns which I doubt will ever be resolved. I conclude that the article was barely notable before and should be considered for deletion now. doktorb _words^deeds 14:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hatten är din is indeed a known meme from its time; it is described on the website Know Your Meme[27] and was the subject of reporting in the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet; I have added that reference to the article. It was also treated as well-known at a 2002 conference on internet memes.[28] --Chonak (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Know Your Meme features user-generated content and is thus not a reliable source. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the point. There is also site-generated content on KYM, namely the Know Your Meme video episodes. Could they count as a source? They do purport to be researched, and the episode on Phonetic Transcriptions cites Hatten är din as an example of soramimi and animutation (about 1:30-1:45 of the video). --Chonak (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the videos that the staff produces are reliable or not is a bit of a grey area, I've heard editors opine in different directions on that. Use your best judgment, I guess. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I guess the basic question is if a Swedish internet meme can be notable. I would say "only with good referencing", and neither the English or the Swedish version of the article has this type of referencing. (The closest it comes is a mention in a list of "49 sites to laugh at" in the tabloid Aftonbladet in 2001. Not everything considered a joke by a tabloid is of sufficient notability for its own article.) By the way, the English version of sv:Ansiktsburk, a similar form of "Turkhit", was deleted in 2009. Tomas e (talk) 18:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This was one of the early Internet memes, widely known in Scandinavia and featured in contemporary media both on and off the net, including TV. Most people I know in Denmark still remember it to this day. So yes it is notable and deleting it would be detrimental to the value of Wikipedia. 62.200.22.2 (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 19:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laurens Pluijmaekers

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

Contested PROD, where editor added primary and other non-independent sources. Subject is a player who is on a team that has won several awards for tournament play in a first-person shooter. Much of the individual's notability, therefore, is from his team. Furthermore, the current sources are the subject's personal profile, facebook page, and info from the team the subject played on. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article creator added the following to the talk page:

hey, lauke is probably the greatest Unreal tournament player ever, right up there with players like Gitzzz and winz. he should have a wiki page so when people search for him it would be easy to read about him, as e-sports certainly is getting bigger. and the community needs it resource. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Professional gamers can be notable. However, when only three non-Wikipedia Google hits come up, things are not looking good. Sources in article are not reliable. Therefore, doesn't meet WP:GNG Bgwhite (talk) 06:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – there was a typo in the name of the subject, Plujimaekers instead of the correct Pluijmaekers. I've corrected this. After correction, there are more Google hits including at least one reliable source, suggesting a possible marginal notability. Additionally, the name is sometimes spelled Pluymaekers giving further hits (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). The subject also has an article on the German Wikipedia. --Lambiam 09:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep - Good coverage at webwerlde[29] (where the surname is spelt "Pluymaekers"), further verification at BBC News, Sohu. Perhaps not quite the significant coverage that the WP:GNG asks for, but I'm also considering the additional kinds of criteria given by WP:NSPORT. Marasmusine (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: those variant names and new refs need to be in the page not the AfD. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question I'm prepared to accept world championships in anything as notable , but I am unclear what of the various tournaments listed have that status. The various Wikipedia articles are of no particular help that I can see. Perhaps what we really need is an article about these competitions in general. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He took gold in Unreal Tournament 2004 at the World Cyber Games in 2004, which, I think, qualifies as a world championship. --Lambiam 07:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – sufficiently notable, as evidenced by coverage in independent reliable sources. --Lambiam 07:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Cirt (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hurry Up, We're Dreaming

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

Contested PROD with the following rationale:

soon to be released albums get articles on wikipedia all the time.

Unreleased album by M83 obviously does not qualify for WP:NALBUMS. A single from the album has apparently been released^{[citation needed]}, but unreleased albums that aren't covered in-depth by secondary sources don't belong on WP per similar reasoning at WP:TOOSOON. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Yunshui (talk) 07:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ this unreferenced article unless someone can produce evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Found decent coverage by some reliable sources. —Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 06:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We got significant coverage from Stereogum, Pitchfork and Spin. So yeah, I would say this article has evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Thomsonmg2000 (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So far, the consensus seems to be 3 keep, 1 delete (I'm not sure what side I, Jethrobot falls on). However, I think this deletion debate should end because "title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label," and therefore, the album can have an independent article. By the way, in response to I, Jethrobot, here is a link to the first single from the album, via Rolling Stone. Thomsonmg2000 (talk) 04:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough information for an article. Close enough to release to make deletion pointless.--Michig (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted above, we have an album title, release date and tracklisting. The non-trivial coverage [at Pitchfork, Spin, Under the Radar, Stereogum] added by User:Thomsonmg2000 demonstrates the subject meets WP:NALBUM. Gongshow ^Talk 20:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Both User:Thomsonmg2000 and User:Gongshow are right, this meets the criteria on multiple levels, as stated. Nothingcorporate (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. only 2 comments, but lear enough that there is no need to relist. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FITzee Foods

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

I could find no reliable sources to establish notability sufficient enough to pass the notability guidelines. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 03:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sources within the article do not establish any notability at all, and I couldn't find anything through searching that provides any significant coverage for this subject. Topher385 (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notable coverage on Google and Yahoo aside from an Examiner article. SwisterTwister talk 01:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ambassadors of Russia to Thailand

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

I would think that if none of the people on the list are WP:Notable after a year of this lists being here, then the entire list should be considered for deletion. WP:LISTPEOPLE is the closest I can think of, but I have never seen a complete "list of" Redlinks before. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 03:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Every name on this list is a redlink" does not automatically entail "No name on this list is notable." I don't know if we have a notability or outcomes guideline that specifically helps us deal with ambassadors, but I would have thought they were inherently notable, and this list is encyclopedic and necessary for the eventual organization of these articles. Weak keep, or at absolute worst, merge to Russia-Thailand relations. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If other Lists of Ambassadors of X to X exist, don't think there is any sense in deleting this one. GreyHood ^Talk 09:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many others do exist, but none of the ones I saw in my cursory look were composed entirely of redlinks. But again, as I said in my vote, I'm for keeping this one on the hopefully-not-fallacious grounds that a) ambassadors are notable and b) a list of ambassadors is encyclopedic. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Ambassadors are notable per consensus on the talk page at WP:DIPLOMAT. PaintedCarpet (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That Talk page happens to be talking about singular people that have Articles, not lists compleatly composed of redlinks. From reading WP:DIPLOMAT, individually they currently fail that, I think WP:POSITION is appropriate to read at this point. To me, it looks as though this list exists just for the sake of having a list. Its simply a regurgitation of information that is available eleswhere. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 13:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's also WP:LISTPURP which states "any lists which exist primarily for development or maintenance purposes (such as a list that consists primarily of red links) should be in project or user space, not the main space." Emphasis mine. PaintedCarpet (talk) 06:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And "....not the main space." means ???? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 20:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True. However, I'd still think the list is useful and would rather see the individual Ambassadors' pages updated, rather than delete this page for lack of info. PaintedCarpet (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see a problem with the list having only red links since the topic itself is encyclopedic, and their inclusion on the list is based on whether they were in fact ambassadors to Thailand, and that is regardless of whether they are notable enough for their own articles - frankie (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By our established standards for ambassadors, every one of them is individually notable. The criteria for lists of this sort require eligibility ofr Wikipedia articles, not removal of the list because they have yet to be written. This is a first step; this is how the encyclopedia always has grown DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Frankie and DGG, or incubate. 24.97.138.94 (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Joseph Fox 22:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Patriarch magazine

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

Orphaned stub on an obscure and defunct magazine. No evidence of significant coverage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article seems to fail WP:GNG. Topher385 (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A periodical that has ceased publication can still be notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article was once titled Phil Lancaster (the name of the magazine's publisher is more frequently given as Phillip Lancaster), and perhaps the article should be moved to the person's full name. I have added some references, which I think establish notability for both the magazine and the person. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You added two low-quality affiliated sources and one very brief passing mention. That does not add up to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" of either the man or the magazine. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Perhaps I should mention that I do not support the ideology of the magazine or its founder. A topic can be notable and icky at the same time. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's sad that you think it necessary to point this out. It really shouldn't make any difference in a discussion. St Anselm (talk) 08:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: that a magazine is defunct means that (i) it is not creating new reasons for third parties to write about it & (ii) the longer it has been defunct, the less likely new material will be written about it. Given the scarcity of existing material (let alone "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"), I would suggest that this is one more nail in the coffin. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on references, and that fact that it is a magazine that published for that length of time, I think it can meet or has met wp:notability. Article also contains useful information. North8000 (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deleted, but Userified as User:TheActressUK/Thea Glindorf. If no references are found within a year, that p. probably should be deleted also. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thea Glindorf

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

Does not meet criteria of WP:ENT. I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources. Google search for "Thea Glindorf" results in 83 "unique" pages: a lot of social networking and directories, but none of them covering her in any depth as an actor. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 03:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, again, I'm new, so I might be going at this discussion all wrong - if I am, I apologize. Thea Glindorf is a theatre actress and as such there won't be a lot of internet coverage of her as an actress, because that is generally not used for theatre actresses/actors, except on their own webpages - which is currently down (as I stated; I talked to her about). I'm really not trying to step on anyone's toes, I just saw this girl perform about a month and a half ago in Birmingham and found out that there wasn't a lot about her on the internet, so I contacted her and asked her if I could make a wikipedia page about her and she said that was alright. I completely understand why you don't want to add any number of odd pages, but this girl is good, and while she is not famous (yet), I just wanted to make her more visible.

Now if that is completely against Wikipedia rules, I do apologize. But I did not see that anywhere on the site.

And the reason for me removing the deletions box, was because I went to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion and as far as I understood point 2, I was allowed to do that.

Again; if that is completely 'against Wikipedia rules' I apologise - I thought I was acting accordingly.

Hope you will get back to me, as I am still utterly confused about the grounds for deletion.

Reply (and Delete!vote) You've provided the reason for deletion yourself - "...she is not famous (yet), I just wanted to make her more visible...". Wikipedia is not a crystal ball or a promotional tool. Until Ms Glindorf is the subject of multiple, independent, reliable sources (or otherwise meets the criteria at WP:NACTOR), she should not have an article on Wikipedia. Yunshui (talk) 07:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Well.. is it possible to save the page and re-upload it when she has more stuff written about her? I read somewhere that it could be moved to a "safe place" where I could keep editing it, without it being deleted.. If that is possible, I'd love to get help to move it there, please. TheActressUK (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userify per creator's request. (See WP:Userification.) Clarityfiend (talk) 01:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Resource Technologies, Inc.

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

I am not seeing significant coverage in secondary sources for this company per the WP:GNG. There are mentions in business directory-type publications that can verify this company's existence, but they do not approach significant coverage. VQuakr (talk) 02:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per lack of notable mentions, media coverage in general. Aside from job listings, I didn't see anything on my search. SwisterTwister talk 02:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Khowar Wikipedia

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

no evidence of notability Postoronniy-13 (talk) 01:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Baseball Watcher 01:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or, in the alternative, redirect to Wikipedia. Neutrality^talk 13:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. We seem to have a rough consensus that this article is not notable, but also a rough enough consensus to ignore the rules in this case. As much as I'm not convinced that's the right call to make, it is the consensus. Courcelles 18:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Waray-Waray Wikipedia

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

doubtful notability, too short article Postoronniy-13 (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this language, Waray-Waray, is spoken by 3.4 million people in the Philippines, and the Wiki has over 100,000 articles, thus it is likely to be notable. Before nomination, it is likely that many sources could be found. Bearian (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the relevant Philippines wiki project was never notified. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC) So I did it. Bearian (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notification. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As a sister WMF project, I'd expect it to be exempt from WP:N (though not from WP:V). Not to mention that this is one of the larger other language Wikipedias on a major language with far more speakers than say Basque, Irish, Slovenian, or Welsh.

I'm completely dumbfounded really. Seems to be an extreme interpretation of WP:WEB and possibly an exercise in seeing how far wikilawyering will go. As far as I'm concerned, activities like this are disruptive despite staying 'within the rules'. It's gaming the system and annoying, so forgive me if I don't sound too AGF-ey in the following:

Nominator may not be aware that almost all of our articles on sister projects rely on primary sources. Our article on Wikimedia Commons for example, only has two truly independent sources and both are trivial, should we delete that too?

He has also nominated the article in the Russian Wikipedia citing similar reasons, and nominated another sister project in addition to this, the Khowar Wikipedia article.

I'm concerned that nominator may have been encouraged by an AfD barnstar. At only 314 edits, only 124 on article space, and an incongruous amount of AfD's. I really don't think he should be nominating anything more at this point. The failure to notify the appropriate WikiProjects is a glaring example of why not, plus previous instances, see User talk:Postoronniy-13.

I'm more than tempted to AfD Russian Wikipedia as well just to see how he'll deal with it. It also fails WP:WEB.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 21:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please not count my edits - I'm observing their number and quality by myself, it's enough. :) Most of my "incongruous amount of AfD's" were proper, see their results. Also I advise you not to pass on personalities any more. :) --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian rules about notability should be followed, it's doubtful that this article can be exempt because of any reasons. Please not to blame me for "disruptive activities", there is nothing "disruptive" in my wish for following wiki rules. :) --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also Ru-Wiki obviously passes notability rules. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, there are no exceptions from the notability rules to articles about WMF projects. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 09:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously. I suppose it makes you warm and fuzzy all over that you know you can nominate every other language Wikipedia for deletion while your home Wikipedia is safe. No, I do not equate edit count with capability. However, having a large list of passed AfD's, when you have done little else doesn't particularly impress me. To the contrary, it worries me. Is this all you're planning to do then? AfD's are easy. How about writing articles first?

Anyway yeah, here we have our umbrella project, meta.wiki, trying to kickstart different language Wikipedias up from incubators, and you're here happily sabotaging it with some blather on rules. We're not separate sites. Different rules, different people, different languages, but we're all under WMF with the same goal of free knowledge. Rules are fine. But you might want to get a little bit of common sense with that. Or are you maybe just trolling? Here, I'll help you. The following articles fail WP:WEB miserably:

I'm sure there are more. :) Start deleting. No one will mind if you systematically start erasing articles about ourselves. After all, you said it yourself, there are no exceptions. You're probably one of those people who'd rather let someone drown than help them because the sign on the beach says "Strictly no swimming!". Cheers.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 10:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like your discussion style, I think it's not correct. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 11:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm too lazy for to have a look at such many articles :), nevertheless I suppose that considerable number of them are notable. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 11:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all WMF projects have the same goal of free knowledge, but for to have an article in main namespace of one project about other project - it's necessary that the article would satisfy project rules, particularly notability rules. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 11:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, I know you're definitely trolling by now. Don't give me that excuse. You were not lazy enough to take a glance at two sister WMF projects and decide they were not worth it were you? I'm doing all the work here!

Which of the 'considerable number' are 'notable'? Just one. Is it the Finnish Wikipedia with ~250,000 articles, 8 million native speakers, and no sources? Maybe it's the 15th largest Wikipedia, the Ukrainian Wikipedia, also with zero sources. It might also be our much loved Wikimedia Commons with only passing mentions in two independent sources with all the remaining sources primary sources. I'm sorry but all of them do fail by your precious rules.

Except that they don't. You do know that WP:N is a guideline, not a policy, right? Please take a quick look at the very top of our page on WP:N. Specifically this:

"This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page."

Hint: WP:COMMONSENSE. Anyway I'm sure you enjoy AfD's very much. I look forward to you nominating all the articles I gave above. I'm sure many editors will appreciate your hard work for removing such apparent garbage from our precious Wikipedia.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For Ukrainian WP - see [30] (WP altogether and Ukr. WP related publications collected on the page). --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please not blame me for "trolling" - groundless blame for violations of WP rules is a violation of WP rules. Please talk with me politely, not aggressively. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You think that we should ignore notability rule on the ground of "common sense" (as you understand it)? It's only your opinion, not a fact. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 13:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finally. You get it. The thought that someone actually wastes time and energy AfDing a sister project is amazingly nonsensical to me (and frankly territorial, given the energy you've expounded in defending your home wikis). By deleting it, you are damaging not only the exposure of that particular project but of all Wikipedias in general. Notice this page: http://www.wikipedia.org/ ? That's us. That's not really a very hard concept to get, is it?

Instead of doing more constructive things like finding WP:COI unsourced and advertisment-filled junk articles that some company or another is always making on Wikipedia, or even writing articles, you are instead devoting your energy on deleting a part of Wikipedia. You're basically telling entire groups of your fellow editors that they're worthless. Why? Because they're probably not as well advanced into the digital age as your countries? Why wouldn't I be cranky at that? I will assume bad faith on editors who apparently have no compunctions at eroding the very foundation that made all this possible in the first place, all through myopic interpretations of guidelines.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 14:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(EC-ed. :|) OT: Obsidian Soul, methinks you should join Wikimedia Philippines. We need members from the Visayas. :P --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 14:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So let us record: as I think, you have no real arguments (based on WP rules) for the article to be kept. The article has no evidence of notability and should be deleted. Some of your sentences have no relation to notability discussion and/or are not polite. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Language barrier? You really can't see anything past rules can you? In which case, my earlier sentence about letting another guy drown for a No Swimming sign applies perfectly. And this is pointless. I'll expect you to start AfDing the others listed above. Else I'm calling Russocentric hypocrisy. Especially since you're only AfDing anything not Russian, and not even blinking an eye when editing completely unsourced Russian articles like FC MVD Rossii Moscow.

And yes, sorry. I don't really bother pretending to be sunshine and rainbows when I don't feel like it. AfD's are not exactly tea parties in the garden. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 15:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Notability is a policy, but it has historically been subject to a wide variety of interpretations, none of which can truly grasp the spirit of what notability on the English Wikipedia pertains to, as I will explain in my vote below. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 14:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's a Wikipedia site which is the only reason that I need. Joe Chill (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a tremendously bad reason. Neutrality^talk 13:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--YOSHI mitsu 11:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you any arguments? This is a discussion, not a voting. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 11:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is as same as other friends.--YOSHI mitsu 13:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(EC-ed. :|) Neutral There is credence in keeping the article, which is that it has grown to 100,000 articles and is, by article count, the largest Philippine-language Wikipedia. However, this is counterbalanced by two things: first, most of the articles are one-line stubs, and second, the Waray-Waray Wikipedia has not yet gotten the exposure needed to satisfy the English Wikipedia's notability requirements. We must consider though that notability is inherently subjective (something which for some reason is lost among some editors): as the lone Waray-Waray encyclopedia, people living in Eastern Visayas, where Waray-Waray is the dominant language, are probably going to be as aware of the existence of the Waray-Waray Wikipedia as they would be aware of the existence of TV Patrol Tacloban (which also had a similar AfD). But is this enough? That's something that I'd like to see answered in this AfD. (N.B.: I'm voting "Neutral" because part of what Wikimedia Philippines does is promoting the Philippine-language Wikimedia projects, and I'm concerned that conflict of interest may arise, so I hope everyone understands. Thanks.) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 14:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for detailed comment. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No third-party, independent references in article, and it does not seem like very many sources (newspaper and magazine references, journal articles, etc.) treating the subject in depth exist to sustain a claim to notability. Neutrality^talk 00:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A low profile subject but war-wiki is indisputably an integral part of Wikipedia. Most probably, this would be the first place that wikipedians will look into, if they are interested to know about Waray-Waray wikipedia. Deleting this article is too drastic, disruptive and counterproductive. The nominator may wish to use other methods such as merger. As an administrator of Waray-Waray wikipedia, I would still prefer that we leave this as is, uphold its legitimacy, and let it grow. Don't kill it. --JinJian (talk) 09:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you any arguments disproving arguments for deletion by me and Neutrality? If to merge - with what? --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If some people are looking for info about this wiki, it would be well if they could find it - in more general article or in Wikipedia namespace where is no WP:N. Let's think just where we can place info about this wiki (if not in separate article in main namespace). --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Readers, especially the target readers of Wikipedias, don't look for information in the Wikipedia namespace.
Why didn't you write a general article on all 'non-notable' Wikimedia projects then and propose a merge instead of an AfD?
You're treating a fellow Wikimedia project as if it was some promotional for-profit evil company completely separate from the very same Wikipedias you are editing. WP:N's purpose was to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics especially for self-promotion and indiscriminate publicity. Now you're doing indiscriminate exclusion, acting on a rule because it says so, without actually asking yourself what it means or what its purpose was.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 17:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree with the characterization that deleting the article will be too "drastic, disruptive and counterproductive". For a while the article on the Tagalog Wikipedia, which is certainly more notable than the Waray-Waray Wikipedia, was a redirect to the article List of Wikipedias. It was resurrected shortly after Wikipedia Day because a non-Filipino editor thought that since it now had 50,000 articles, it deserved its own Wikipedia article. If this article, which is about a Wikipedia double the size but with lesser media exposure (as far as I know), gets deleted, I don't believe that there will be major upheaval because of it. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 12:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)][reply]

Waray-Waray wikipedia article was also started by a non-Filipino editor. I can only speculate that his motivation was since it reached 100,000, it also probably deserved its own article. For now, none of its editors/contributors are from Waray-waray wikipedia as far as I know. --JinJian (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Starting an article is one thing, but retaining it after passing through the intense scrutiny required to keep it is another matter altogether. I'm not a big fan of the notability guidelines myself (it's like passing a thread through the eye of a needle), but we have to abide by them so long as they are policy. I believe though that AfDs like this one can bring about new perspectives as to how notability ought to be treated on the English Wikipedia. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 02:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe to be merged with Waray-Waray language? --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 08:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not recommend merging a wikimedia project with a language. Obsidian Soul already gave you a hint on what to do.

And please be objective to include all 'non-notable' Wikimedia projects of the same class. Do not forget to make redirects if you are successful. This does not necessarily mean that I will be voting favorably for that merger. I still believe that Waray-Waray wikipedia is still 'worthy of notice' and prefer to treat it as a stub. But at least I will consider such move as more constructive.--JinJian (talk) 10:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may request Sky Harbor to help you in identifying the notability of other wikimedia projects that may be included in your merger. He appears to be an expert on this matter. WP:N would also help. Should you decide to Afd Tagalog Wikipedia after discerning things, just like Waray-Waray Wikipedia article, I am also against deleting it because it is too drastic, disruptive and counterproductive as well. I believe both deserved their own articles.--JinJian (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)--JinJian (talk) 05:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And please be objective to include all 'non-notable' Wikimedia projects of the same class. - you are not about the list by Obsidian Soul above, I hope? It's likely that most of projects listed there are notable. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 07:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily as listed by Obsidian Soul. I have not read them all and I have no plan to assess them.--JinJian (talk) 09:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About Tagalog WP - sorry, but notability question is also should be considered. And sorry another time, personally me don't want any more flame discussions. I want my work in En-Wiki to be quiet. :) --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 07:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you do that by choosing controversial deletions. Nice going. "It's likely that most of projects listed there are notable." <- and why do you say that? Because they're of European languages and you've likely heard of them? It was apparent from the start that the main motivation for you really is that that you've never heard of the language. The fact that you even offered to merge it with the Waray-Waray language article is hilarious. As if both are so inconsequential that they can be squeezed into one article only distantly related to each other. You're treating this completely like a WP:COI article, as if Waray people are writing the entire thing intent on promoting... what? Their people? Which part of it's a Wikipedia did you not get? A not-for-profit website that we link to in our interlanguages because it is part of the entire foundation we are volunteering in.

If you're wondering why I'm so worked up about this - no, I'm not Waray, don't know any Waray people, and I don't even speak the language. But the fact that things like this happen all the time is the reason why WP:Systemic bias is still a very big problem in Wikipedia. It's always some clueless and perhaps more than a little xenophobic European who sees an article on an unfamiliar subject, then decides arbitrarily that the subject must not be notable since he hasn't heard of it and it didn't come from any western country. This is especially since you've self-identified as nationalistic, making your intentions suspect. Yes the language Waray-waray is obscure to you, but not to us. And now you're actually setting your sights on the Tagalog Wikipedia while still refusing to run through the list I gave at the beginning. Nice.

You sir, are a shining example of what happens when rules replace common sense. This is my final rant here, and I don't really expect you to change your mind anytime soon. I have better things to. Like write articles. So good day.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 11:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see, you can't discuss without personal attacks, it's sadly. --Postoronniy-13 (talk) 12:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then ignore my personal attacks and focus on what I am saying. I admittedly have a very short temper, sorry.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 12:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough, the both of you. Keep the debate civil without having to resort to personal attacks, sarcastic or otherwise. Tempers can be controlled no matter how short they are. :| --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 01:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped. :| Now that I've gotten back to doing my usual stuff. I realize I totally overreacted... as usual. Apologies to Postoronniy. Although I still will not support deletion in this case, I will keep myself off this discussion.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 02:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The various language Wikipedias are a reasonable exception to the usual guidelines. WP:N explicitly says it does not cover all cases. The people to decide on making exceptions is ourselves, and this is the place. DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected the dead link about Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Waray-Waray in the article. --Brateevsky ^{(talk to me)} 11:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Also, that an article is short is not a valid deletion reason. Rlendog (talk) 15:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs formerly broadcast by Network Ten

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. See also: parent article's AfD. Themeparkgc Talk 01:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and WP:INDISCIMINATE, and also WP:NOTABILITY as no meaning or notability has been attached to why this list criteria is encyclopedic. --Falcadore (talk) 03:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any television station in the world would have countless programmes they used to broadcast. It's purely unnecessary and unencyclopaedic for lists of these to be drawn up here. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 01:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OBEY Graphic Stratocaster

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

Non-notable guitar; I'd merge it but there is no verifiable content and redirect worth saving. Drmies (talk) 05:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Stratocaster is clearly notable, as is the graphic artist Shepard Fairey. However, notability is not inherited, and my search for reliable sources to establish notability of this particular decorated guitar found none. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of notability for this guitar model. Acroterion (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails. WP:GNG Stuartyeates (talk) 07:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Vrebosch, Jr.

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

non-chosen political candidate with little coverage (about 4500 hits, split between him and his father) Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This failed political candidate who got about 4% of the vote also fails WP:POLITICIAN. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Y'know, I've probably got among the most inclusionist perspectives on political biographies as anyone here. But a fourth place finish in a city council race?!?! All I can do is quote Gob Bluth: "WP:COMEON!!!." This one doesn't come remotely close to clearing the high notability bar for failed political candidates which has been established here by consensus. Carrite (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the reasons already given. Bgwhite (talk) 07:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable candidate. Atrian (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable candidate, is a political insider and community activist. 4th place in a heavy NDP-Liberal ward with a main street view of how the city should operate. User:TimHarper068 (talk) 19:23, 14, August 2011 (UTC)
- And is he chosen in any institution of importance? Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Mejia

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

Not much media coverage (due to her being Peruvian?). She didn't win the competition presented in this article. Looks promotional and the source is pure spam Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think this person's achievements are sufficient to meet our notability requirements for people. Btw, the title of the article is Grace Mejia, but the article and the source refer to Cindy Mejia. I have tried to search for both the names, but I wasn't successful. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Third place finisher in a Peruvian beauty pageant = insufficient achievement to merit encyclopedic biography. Basically, to my way of thinking, a winner would be in, failing that there needs to be some alternate notability "hook." This stub doesn't offer that. Carrite (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sources on Yahoo and Google that could help a biography. SwisterTwister talk 21:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. SarahStierch's argument tips this to a no consensus closure. Courcelles 00:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Distress

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

promotional article for local organization DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article certainly needs improving, and the inclusion of further facts and figures about the history of the organisation. However, this domestic violence shelter has been performing an essential purpose in its community for 35 years, surely some kind of record, and it must have saved numerous lives. Those are grounds for notability in my book. Although its style is reminiscent of an information brochure, I really do not think it is appropriate to describe an article about this subject as 'promotional'. It has been neglected due to being an orphan, which is in turn is due to the inexperience of the editor who created it, who asked for help on the talk page and received very little. I have now added it to the WikiProjects for Florida, Crime and Feminism in the hope that this will change. Although there is the problem that anti-domestic violence organisations deliberately avoid publicity and media coverage for obvious reasons, I think it is unlikely that reliable sources cannot be found to improve it. Rubywine . talk 00:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The end of the world is nigh when DGG noms something for deletion. :) But really, it just reads like a PR piece. If notability cannot be established in reliable sources, that's all there is to it. A press release from the Sheriff's office doesn't cut it. Tarc (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have edited the article. It is more concise and neutral in tone, and contains additional information. I have also added two recent local news items to the article. One of them is an interview with Mary Riedel, the president and CEO of Women In Distress, about state-wide domestic violence trends in Florida. I decided not to include another news item where Riedel was quoted for comment after a doctor was cleared of assault, and another one in a Spanish-language newspaper. It appears that Riedel is somebody that the Florida press will approach for comments about domestic/sexual violence and the crisis in non-profit funding. Rubywine . talk 07:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A tad promotional but what is it hurting? CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOHARM is not a valid reason to retain an article on the Wikipedia. Tarc (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete They appear to do great work. The interview is interesting. But it's notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't follow this. Which bit was the typo? Rubywine . talk 13:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I gather that Stuartyeates meant to say "it's not notable". Tarc (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had meant to say "it's not notable"; but with mistakes like that I should probably withdraw my vote. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A worthy cause, no doubt, but it lacks third party sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow this either. Please clarify. It's got multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources. WP:NONPROFIT only requires two, and it has more. Rubywine . talk 13:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it really doesn't. One newspaper is an interview with the head of the organization, it isn't really saying much about the group itself. The second newspaper link mentions it in passing only. Tarc (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The third party sources need to be independent of the subject, and need to address (comment on, criticise) the subject directly. There is the concern that this article exists to promote the organisation, and so we demand "independent secondary sources" fairly firmly. A lot of worthy causes try to use Wikipeida to raise their profile. Please see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). If you can find one or two good independent sources that discuss the organisation directly, cite it in the first sentence. It looks really bad when the first reference is to the organisation's website. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your replies, and your advice. However I've spent considerable time trying to beef up this article and I've done as much as I possibly can. Clearly I've failed. I have to say that I'm disappointed and shocked that not one person here considered the police press release to be a reliable source, or to provide support for this organisation's notability. [31] "A press release from the Sheriff's office doesn't cut it." according to Tarc. Really? Well, if the content of that press release isn't reliable or notable, I don't know what is. Rubywine . talk 23:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but to my reading, while the sources come close to demonstrating notability, they do not say enough about the organisation. They fall into the category of mere mentions. No independent source describes how the organisation works, or how good (or bad) it is, for example. The independent sources do little more than verify that the organisation exists, they don't demonstrate that anyone has noticed what it does. When I search for information with google, after the organisation's website and wikiedia.org, I start to find references to a similarly named organisation in India. It's entirely possible that there exists local coverage of this organisation, but not enough is provided. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Well, I have found some material on the Broward Sheriff's site which I am looking through. Perhaps some of that will meet your requirements. Rubywine . talk 23:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has been improved on, and can continue to be improved on. Here are a few other links that are usable in improving the article. Even if we have to make the article smaller to keep it, I think it's better than nothing. Many institutions make their own articles, it takes Wikipedians to come along and make them neutral and better. That is what Rubywine is doing.

An interview with the CEO of Women in Distress from the South Florida Sun-Sentinel
PNC Bank buys WiD's old building as WiD moves to a new location from the South Florida Business Journal.
GuideStar - not sure if you need to register. I have a free account and you can access IRS forms and basic information to make a quality non-profit article.
Sun-Sentinel covers the increasing of beds for the shelter.
Roxcy Bolton Collection at the Museum of Florida History. The museum owns the collection of the founder of Women in Distress.
CBS Miami interviews staff from the organization

They might not be internationally or nationally notable, but, they are regionally notable. Hopefully this helps with the press release problem too. Rubywine: Press releases are rarely considered reliable secondary sources, as most of them are self published sources. (There are more threatening, COI, and poor notability articles to focus on than this, but, policy doesn't care about that!) In #wikilove, SarahStierch (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alice offley

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC; article has one local article as source that is not tied to The Mentalists; gnews search (including archives) finds just two additional passing mentions of her having performed solo or with another group. Nat Gertler (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Alice Offley (singer, songwriter, multi instrumentalist, aged 25), has had a strong career as a studio musician and backing musician, working and touring with big names, as well as being a member of smaller bands. Her name recognition by search engines has not been helped by having always been in bands, having been in so many bands, and using ever-changing stage names such as Alice Doll, MEOW and simply Alice. Working solo under her full name is a recent departure.

She has been part of one band, The Mentalists, which definitely is Wiki-notable. Electric Dolls are not unknown. As a solo artist under the name of MEOW, she made two original pop videos which did not go unnoticed on YouTube. She is well supported by her local press. She is due to release her first solo EP in September and from what I've seen of her previous releases, she has a good prospect of raising her profile with that. If we delete her biography now, I predict that it will reappear within the year. Offley doesn't quite fit the criteria as a solo artist, but if you add all of her media coverage together, and include her two appearances as an actress on the BBC's medical drama Casualty, I think she reaches the bar. Rubywine . talk 09:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: Although she does seem to have several credits to her name(s), she does technically fail WP:MUSIC. I'm not sure that I can advocate keeping an article around based on the hope that she might not fail it at some point in the future. Topher385 (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no objection to userfying this article over to someone who was keeping an eye on the impending release so that they could build from this should said release push her across the notability horizon. ---Nat Gertler (talk) 03:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the only alternative to deletion, I'll take the article and volunteer to watch the press. If you give it to me, please capitalise her surname. Thanks. Rubywine . talk 22:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Muhammad Ali. Courcelles 00:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maryum Ali

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

Does not establish notability and does not inherit notability from her father. Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PEOPLE. The current article doesn't come close to establishing notability. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - While the article doesn't currently do a great job of establishing notability, a quick search yields plenty of available sources, so the potential is clearly there. —SW— ^gossip 15:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ultra weak keep~~ She performed on Freedom (Theme from Panther) (coming somewhere near clause 10 of WP:MUSICBIO and hosted a fundraiser for Parkinsons at the Comedy Store [32]. And there's the book, which... er... is definitely on sale. If this was anyone other than the child of a megastar like Mohammed Ali then I'd say delete for sure. But she does get a lot of Google hits indicating that, contrary to the nominator's statement, she has inherited some form of notability (in the public eye) from her father. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 21:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Stuartyeates's rationale below. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 09:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Muhammad_Ali which needs more about his family anyway. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merege to Muhammad Ali I can't believe I didn't think of it earlier. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Omahyra Mota

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

Google on 'Omahyra Mota' get little, single news hit is trivial mention. The majority of the vanilla-web hits are stright directory listings, like this one at NyMag. Even the coverage related to the People "most beautiful" are trivial. Delete as failing to meet the general notability guideline. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AKAs:

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

Comment The GNG is intended to work in conjunction with the SNGs, and is not set to override them. Her work as a fashion model has gotten a certain amount of notice for the last ten years and her verifiable and written of role as Arclight in X-Men: The Last Stand seems to have her pushing at WP:ENT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for those. I've looked through quite a few of the hits that come from those searches, and didn't find anything significant. Was there one in particular that I may have missed? Also, the subject specific notability guides aren't an "or" with the general notability guide, they are shorthand. Items that meet SNGs are presumed to meet the GNG. But that's linked to "rebuttable presumption" on the guideline. If no sources can be found when looked for, then it fails the GNG. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing any substantial coverage in google searches either. Lots of mentions-in-passings and directory indexes, but no substantial coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I didn't see much on my Google and Yahoo search that could help a biography aside from IMDb and model listings pages. SwisterTwister talk 22:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Dempsey Racing

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

WP:Notability. This one sentence article about little known motor racing team racing in a minor development national series (third or fourth tier national series) fails notability completely. Falcadore (talk) 05:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I could not find any significant coverage of this group at all. Topher385 (talk) 03:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to British_Formula_Ford_Championship article Considering the team takes part in entry-level motor racing, WP:NMotorsport is not met. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Too little in terms of context and nothing in terms of notability. Donnie Park (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alacrite

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

the ~only~ reference on the entire page is a 404, there are no google results for "alacrite", certainly nothing reliable - i've got Machinery's Handbook and some AWS standards here and some other books and none of them mention anything like this... and the article is literally eight words with as little detail as possible. ZigSaw 09:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also: Found an excellent reference, looks like there are quite a few alternate names for it http://www.carlier.cc/fiche/25.htm ZigSaw 12:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the link in the article to [33]. TimBentley (talk) 20:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've expanded the article and added a couple of references to show notability, though it is still very short. Google Books and Google Scholar show plenty of mentions in the scientific and technical literature. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its existence has been proven and this is the kind of thing encyclopaedias are made of! We could do with a metal expert to give us some textbook citations. Any volunteers...? :-) ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 22:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect; as User:Richwales notes, the content worth merging has already been moved across to the relevant article. Ironholds (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Von Haessler

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

I don't think a local radio hosts has enough notability to have an article on Wikipedia D O N D E groovily Talk to me 18:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Wachs (included Larry Wachs, Eric Von Haessler, and Regular Guys). If not kept, it should be merged into The Regular Guys. TimBentley (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All the "do not delete" votes seemed to be unsigned on that old discussion. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 21:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge CBS News has covered him but otherwise he isn't notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Notable only for one bit of naughtiness that attracted the ire of the FCC. Von Haessler is already covered at The Regular Guys, so there may or may not be something to merge there. This local morning DJ is to be found via social media, lame blog, and YouTube links, but is not the subject of independent and substantial published coverage, outside of the one event of saying naughties on the air. Fails General Notability Guidelines. Carrite (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS and WP:1EVENT. I copied this article's only cited source (regarding the subject's single notable event) to The Regular Guys. Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to David Markson. Courcelles 00:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Markson's Tetralogy

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/David Markson's Tetralogy

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

These books have never been referred to as though David Markson's Tetralogy was their title anywhere except this page. The only quotation referring to the term 'tetralogy' from Markson included in the article is of his wanting to dissuade critics from using this term. Chips Critic (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to David Markson. Otherwise each book could have its own article. No real need to group them together in this article. Borock (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR, but I don't see enough to delete as uncntested PROD here. Courcelles 00:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fără Cuvinte

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

Per WP:NSONGS, single that has not charted, uses many YouTube videos to establish citations, and contains much a significant amount of prose that is uncited. Hasteur (talk) 13:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Hasteur (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hasteur (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hasteur (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If we remove all self-published sources, we're still left with something workable: Evenimentul Zilei, Gândul and Realitatea, which are all mainstream media outlets in Romania. Given that Romanian musical press almost doesn't exist, this might be enough for passing the WP:GNG. Of course, the article needs to be pruned of the OR based on youtube videos.- Andrei (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Andrei is right, Romanian press is almost non-existent and that makes it very hard to find reliable sources, I've only put Youtube links to interviews with the group and Loredana Groza to try and support the information about the song and music video and to show the single's release date. The song has charted on the 1Music channel charts, that is the only place it's airing. I've alsoe added the 1Music Channel website and showbiz.ro, well-known Romanian outlets as sources in the article.(talk) User:cutkiller 20:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the fact that it's only charted on the 1Music charts (and that we don't have an article for the organization) it's probably a fair assertion that it hasn't qualified for the "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts" claim on the NSONGS list. If there are very few Romanian press sources, then it makes it very difficult to judge notability with the default in our case to not-notable. Hasteur (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the MTV and Europa FM website as sources, as these are major Romanian media outlets and they mention the single. I don't think the Youtube links qualify as "self-published" since they are part of an interview with a TV station that uploaded the video on their own account.User:cutkiller (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ciaran O'Toole

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

I am unable to find any reliable source mentions to help pass either WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. All that I seem to be able to turn up are social media website mentions. This is complicated by the fact that the name is shared by an Australian ex-pat who took a picture of a Fiji cyclone that spread to a lot of websites, as well as a horse trainer of the same name that has several passing references such as [34]. But I have not been able to locate anything to support the subject of this article as being notable. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Existing sources do not establish notability. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RockAAA

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

Article was originally nominated for Speedy, but then a claim was added (without a citation though) that RockAAA was the first centralised content hub for rock music news, features and media. I am unable to confirm this claim in any reliable source. Doing a search for anything in a reliable source to establish notability I am unable to find anything to help pass WP:NWEB. The only references I turn up are a few reprints of the content mostly on another website called antimusic.com. I have not been able to find any evidence of awards or substantial focal coverage. I also tried to find enough to pass WP:GNG but was unsuccessful as the only references I found were passing references such as [35]. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of third-party sources, as I didn't find any notable mentions on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 02:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guaiás

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

Cannot find any material about this group. Does not appear to be a name for a specific ethnic group. I can, however, find information about "Guaiá" being a type of rattle. Uyvsdi (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No one has commented in over a week but to assure you that this article should be deleted, one of the best online sources for information about indigenous peoples of Brazil, pib.socioambiental.org, has no mention of "Guaiá" or any close variation of the term: here. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)Uyvsdi[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. Courcelles 00:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MEPO software

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

Advertisement for a non-notable software product.

This product claims to be widely used in the oil and gas industry. Its claim to importance is that The software solution is frequently referenced at conferences in the oil and gas business due to an extensive user base in 50 Exploration and Production companies world wide. Industrial usage is mainly related to assisted history matching, uncertainty quantification and production optimization. While no actual references are provided, the article lists six papers or conference presentations. Google Scholar finds two hits that look like incidental mentions or credits, and one News hit in Norwegian which looks like an incidental mention. I suspect the other papers are about the underlying problem the software tries to solve.

This might do something very technical, referenceable, and interesting, but I am not seeing the references out there. Or this may be way too limited and technical to ever achieve notability. The description in the page is too vague to explain what the actual problem is or how the software tries to solve it. Tagged for advertising tone, no inbound links, and COI since 12/09. Contested speedy deletion, not mine. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Weak Delete: Google search retrieves about 600 hits. I think there's enough to this to pass any notability issues, but I'm concerned about the lack of independent references and the apparent single-purpose status of the article creator. This could possibly be rescued if there's someone out there who knows more about the software in question and can reference the article appropriately? (Admins - if I'm the only delete vote on this I suggest closing this as no consensus.) Vulcan's Forge (talk) 03:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete google search coverage is not uncommon for non-notable freely-downloadable software. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. improved sufficiently to meetthe original objections. DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Narcissistic abuse

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

Bizarre WP:SYNTH subject that no substantial work has been deovted to examine thus failing WP:GNG The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has a decent number of references in Google Scholar and Books. Also the fact that different people have attached varying meanings to the phrase is entirely typical of an evolving concept of that nature (as for example Narcissistic rage and narcissistic injury or True self and false self) and has nothing to do with synthesis. --Penbat (talk) 08:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment - "has come to mean any abuse by a narcissist." ... isn't all that explained in Narcissistic supply ??? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 03:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment - no different concept. Narcissistic supply is affirmation, approval, or admiration that the narcissist expects from others. Narcissistic abuse is effectively the opposite, abuse metered out by narcissists to people who dont provide narcissistic supply. I think both articles narcissistic abuse and narcissistic supply could do with clarifying.--Penbat (talk) 07:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redir - 2 sides of the same coin should be explained in 1 place. The Narcissist wants something. If they get it its supply, if they dont its abuse. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 23:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No you misunderstand. I was being simplistic. Not getting supply doesnt necessarily lead to abuse, it just may lead to abuse. They are separate processes. They are not conceptually exact opposites (or two sides of the same coin) and the two concepts were developed at different times by different people. Narcissistic abuse is actually conceptually quite closely related to narcissistic rage, being the type of anger that leads to narcissistic abuse, but dont think of merging the two as anger isnt the same as abuse.--Penbat (talk) 08:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe that all the references contain the ngram Narcissistic abuse, but I don't believe that there is substantial coverage. ~~The apparent confusion above leads me to think that I'm not in thinking that the definition also needs to be substantially rewritten.~~ Stuartyeates (talk) 08:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what does "The apparent confusion above leads me to think that I'm not in thinking that the definition also needs to be substantially rewritten." mean ?--Penbat (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction replace with "The apparent confusion above leads me to think that the definition also needs to be substantially rewritten." Stuartyeates (talk) 09:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have just informed User:Jacobisq, the editor who did most of the work on narcissistic abuse of this AFD. He should have been informed before. --Penbat (talk) 08:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User_talk:Jacobisq#Narcissistic_abuse_.26_Sycophancy may also be relevant to editors considering the (pre)history of this page. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that discussion doesnt have any direct relevance on the merits of this AFD. I was convinced from the start that "narcissistic abuse" is an important subject but apart from the widely available Vaknin work, I didnt personally have access to other relevant sources while User_talk:Jacobisq himself later found more sources and was able to find enough to develop it into a new article. The fate of this article should be left to editors who understand narcissism and narcissistic abuse not to editors who dont understand the subject and make glib assertions.--Penbat (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Absolutely not! This article should not be left to editors who understand narcissism and narcissistic abuse. This is not a specialist publication, it is a general reference encyclopedia. Every page (and particularly every lead) needs to be readable and understandable by someone with high-school level reading and comprehension. If there are topics that can't be explained at that level, they're not suitable for inclusion. I'm willing to admit that Narcissistic abuse might be notable if I understood it; it's the role of the page to give me enough understanding to make that call that it's notable; currently it doesn't. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see the article has been viewed 6148 times in the last 30 days, so the subject obvious has some general interest - but I'm not sure as a newbie whether this fact is relevant. Rereading the article - which I mainly worked on in January - I take Stuartyeates's point about intelligibility - as currently set out, the arguments might well seem a bit arcane. I certainly think myself the subject is notable; but would personally favour retention with a tag for cleanup/wikification Jacobisq (talk) 11:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the numbers are probably inflated by this AfD proposal. As to arcaneness / intelligibility, the main point in my opinion is the lead---those crucial first sentences which give readers an introduction and establish the field, context and notability of the subject. In my experience the lead is where most specialist articles fall short; partly because the subject experts (who are needed to write the page as a whole) have too much context to be able to write an introduction for a general audience. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to "wikify" the lead a bit more; but no doubt there's still room for improvement - and this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, after all! All improvements gratefully received. Interestingly the numbers do seem to have roughly doubled with Afd, as you surmised: April figures are 3,366, May 3,4004 and June 3,440, so steady interest, but at a lower level, before the big August jump. I suppose numbers will (at best!) drop down again when the debate closes.... Jacobisq (talk) 09:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Jacobisq has kindly now made major improvements to the article which should help with intelligibility of the article. The article now has 19 different cited sources which should dispel the lack of sources criticism. User:Stuartyeates misunderstands my point about experts doing the writing - the article should be written for the benefit of the general non-expert public but on the other hand people who think that the moon is made of green cheese shouldn't be writing about the moon.--Penbat (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having felt I'd rather hastily "cobbled together" my earlier input to the article, I'm glad to have been prompted to have another go.

On the substantive point of WP:GNG, I feel more convinced, not less, after the further digging around involved, that this is an important subject with wide ramifications, on which Wikipedia should have a unique page. Er, "No change" Jacobisq (talk) 09:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Joseph Fox 20:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yawn. I think this AFD is way over due to be put to bed. Towards the end of 2 weeks of no consensus, User:Jacobisq made some major improvements to the article. It seems most unlikely that consensus would now suddenly move to delete. --Penbat (talk) 08:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old Corpse Road

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

Clearly fails WP:MUSIC. Band has yet to release an album, and what they have released is not on notable labels. No significant coverage in notable, independent, print sources (all those webzines fail WP:RS by a country mile). Appearing on the unsigned stage at Bloodstock doesn't qualify either. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply not notable.Herrabackfromhiatus (talk) 23:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The band totally fails WP:BAND. This article links to a bunch of others (James Fogarty, English Black Punk Metal/The Bones of This Land are Not Speechless, The Meads of Asphodel, etc. etc. etc.) that are all decently presented with assertions of high notability... and are mostly self-referential, original research reliant on links to fan sites. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ [36]

[1] [36]

[1]

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schoolbags for Kids}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Houtan Delfi}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Conallin}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Conallin}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carnifern}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strong Medicine (novel)}}