Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 May	7 May >

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 Keep. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Real Digital

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

this platform has missed many launch dates dating to around 2008. no concrete evidence it will ever launch. most info is provided by sauces connected to article content. fails wp:crystal in a big way should either by userfy to creators userspace or erased. they did test a signal for a while however this vanished in march and has not returned. I still say it fails wp:crystal Ruth-2013 (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sauces, tasty... - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 11:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.. Company holds a valid Ofcom broadcasting licence and is still trading normally on Companies House(additionally the Companies House data shows that the company became 'REAL Digital' in July 2009 so it would have been impossible for it to miss a launch date in 2008 as claimed). The article is backed up by links to a variety of reputable third party sources including Digital Spy, What Satellite Magazine and Companies House data.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ComeOnEngland (talk • contribs) 15:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. oh really then why has there former now disqualified director been posting on the digital spy forum under the name rapture tv a former company he was involved in claiming launch dates since 2008 until they blocked him. Just cause they changed the name officially in 2009 dont mean they have not missed dates. Sky comes to mind the official company name is bskyb however they trade as sky. Maybe do some research before comment in future. Also the licence list means nothing its littered with channels that have never launched(Ruth-2013 (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Delete. According to their website, the service has launched and boxes are available for sale.[1][2] However there hasn't been any independent coverage for over six months, which includes their launch and suspension of service. The few reliable articles included cover their conditional ability to offer Sky Sports, a presentation made at a trade expo and a report from Wotsat which didn't come true. Based on that, I don't think Real Digital currently passes the notability guidelines, although it could do in the future so userfication would be a good option. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has sufficient refs. Notability isn't temporary and isn't contingent on the service being a success. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.Point is this article should never have been made because its not notable yet,never has been notable and wont be unless the service has a full launch. Your not involved with the subject are you? (Ruth-2013 (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Keep System most certainly exists, boxes have been sold and there has been a LOT of media coverage in reputable industry publications. Very many articles on here exist on things which haven't been launched (movies, books, albums) so that's not really a valid point. The article is extensively sourced, more so than most on here. --Kiand (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.Please provide 100% hard proof of a normal customer who has a box. You can't can you! I suspect we wont get a valid discussion on this subject because it looks to me as though employees of real digital are posting which I suspect the last two keep posters are.(Ruth-2013 (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Going from your attempted (reverted) edits to the article and, now, repeated attempts to claim everyone supporting a keep is an employee (of a company you claim has gone out of existance and hence has no employees??), its become obvious that this is a completely bad faith nomination. Suggesting a speedy keep decision. --Kiand (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No its not It is my belief its gone or on its way out due to the fact its satellite signal vanished months ago and was meant to be back 7 days later which has been and long gone with no return. Maybe you should research before posting if you did not know but I suspect you did as I believe you a real digital employee. Imagine if sky shut down there epg there would be a lot of very annoyed customers this alone should make people realize there is no prospect here and wp:Crystal applies. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL does not deal with anything in this case. The article is sourced and verifiable. --Kiand (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No its not! No verification of a date epg services will resume in the article anywhere and I challenge you to find it! The only one you will find is a historical date and its still not back. wp:cyrstal therefore applies. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Keep. To me, 18 sources and 2 template links look notable. It is a short-ish Article though, so perhaps we should expand it. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Many of the reference come from Real Digital's website and Facebook page, without them the article would likely be considered original research. There doesn't appear to be significant coverage from reliable independent sources. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 08:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Yeah, most of the available sources on this are pretty press-releasey, but if they were actually broadcasting for half a year as the dates in the article indicate now that seems sufficient to me; notability is not temporary. It actually seems notable to me as such a tremendous PR bubble and flop and the article should convey what a cluster▒▒▒▒ it was. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 21:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Annette Betté Kellow

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

Non-notable actress and erotic dancer. Cameron Scott (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. It is possible that there might be references in either burlesque-oriented or acting-oriented publications in Britain, or possibly local papers or local online sources, but it is up to the article's creators to add these. My searching (several passes -- using "Annette Kellow", also with "Bette" in it, with accent both ways) did not find much.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She is not entirely unsourcable for her burlesque performances,[3][4] and has more have coverage outside of England and in more non-English sources than English. Ignoring an implication that being a burlesque performer must somehow be automatically equated to being an erotic dancer (and no, they are NOT the same thing), the stub article also makes other assertions. Without use of her middle name, we can find her work as an actress, producer, and screenwriter.[5][6] is verifiable. So we might look beyond just burlesque, and expand our searches to see if her acting or proucer work has received enough coverage for her to meet WP:ENT or WP:CREATIVE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to switching my vote if acceptable sources are found and added. Clearly she's an interesting person. My sense is the IMDb is generally not a good source (since it often depends on users themselves to supply information); but I agree it is a good idea to keep open-minded about the possibility of new sources.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The filmwork may be verified directly to the work itself. IMDB is decent enough as a external link in that it offers information with which to expand searches... but of course not as a citation. I'll take a look a bit later toward the needed expansion and sourcing, as is work of which I am reasonably able. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (vote by Nirvanarama) She is credible, as an actress and burlesque performer and scriptwriter I have seen her performances and some movies, currently in various commercials too including [7] and [8] and an interview about her career so far [9] [10] This is one of the films she has written in new york and one of its screenings [11] scroll down and for its launch at portobello film festival [12] also [13] her burlesque is all credible [14] and there are many press articles on her page [15] will look up more but i have seen and heard of her shes credible in all these things --- according to Nirvanasomething. (I am just moving the comment to the bottom) NOTE: comment by Nirvanarama, transcribed by me (my vote is still delete, above)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly she is a burlesque dancer and credible performer but what we really need here is what Wikipedia calls reliable sources which are verifiable -- newspaper articles, magazines, TV show airings, books, etc. Generally we do not accept YouTube videos or sites like MUZU (since it wasn't a real reporter, but an upload by somebody named Pip Ellwood). Are there local magazines which have articles about Kellow? Or burlesque-oriented publications? Suggest do a search using this string: ("annette kellow" OR "annette bette kellow" OR "annette Betté kellow" OR "annette Bettè kellow" OR "annette b kellow") and looking through all the SERP pages until you can find sources which meet the RS guideline above. If you need guidance write on my talk page.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tomwsulcer's argument hits the bullseye. There's no significant coverage of this individual, really no more than a locally popular musician would get in local media. None of the films the actress is associated with are themselves notable; they generally appear to be semiprofessional productions with very low budgets -- for example, the film is credited as writer-producer-star of, Gloss, has a reported budget of only $4,000! IMDB is filled with people with similar resumes, only a very small percentage of whom ever achieve notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The more cogent points here is that we are doing readers a disservice to decide that a possible failure of meeting WP:ENT would automatically override other notability criteria. We should not discount that she may meet the WP:GNG for things other than a few films. I offered above that she is not entirely unsourcable for her burlesque performances,[16][17] and has more have coverage outside of England and in more non-English sources than English, and that being a burlesque performer is not to be automatically equated to being an erotic dancer, as they are NOT the same thing. I simply included above that we might look elsewhere. And as for her films, we do not judge notability upon budget, but instead rather upon coverage of the project itself to determine notability. And no, I have not done so yet... and am just adding some perspective. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the sources in the article (one is a note only, one is a snippet view that doesn't even bother to form a complete sentence). Google, Youtube, and IMDB are not RS. If the closer should find that three ordinary RSs have been added to the article in the interim, feel free to strike the !vote. JJB 06:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, the nominated verison is currrently poor. I hope if/when it is made better, you would be willing to reconsider. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP :Annette Betté Kellow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) She has other sources, like Amazon with her films http://www.amazon.co.uk/annette-kellow-Film-TV/s?ie=UTF8&rh=n%3A283926%2Ck%3AAnnette%20Kellow&page=1 There were also links for the festivals her films have appeared in [18] also [19] interviews etc, Tom is clearly saying she is a credible performer and burlesque artist but that wiki has to verify these sources well they were all listed before, and I listed some below, dont know why your even disputing it actually-YOUTUBE can be identified as verifible if it is something from a credible tv show such as Dancing on Ice which she taught the stars how to dance on Ice http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1W2S111JxE0 and http://www.visa.co.uk/en/visa_golden_space/london_2012/our_latest_tv_ad.aspx and a play she was in http://www.allinlondon.co.uk/whats-on.php?event=68803
there is also the links below plus more but I can search more as and when necessary, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirvanarama (talk • contribs) (Comment moved from the top of the page, Sandstein 05:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. The copyright violation required a quick close before the discussion could run its course. —C.Fred (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Woods (professor)

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

I attempted creating this page with Twinkle, but apparently one of my searches was on the spam blacklist, so the page couldn't be saved. Regardless, this professor does not appear to meet the general notability guideline or the notability guideline for biographies. A search using this tool for "Tim Woods" Aberystwyth University only retrieves works by Woods, and searches on the same tool for "Timothy Woods" Aberystwyth University or "Timothy S. Woods" Aberystwyth University retrieve nothing. I also checked Google News and Google News archives using the same search terms, all to no avail. On the description page of the sole image used in the article, the author of the article has identified himself as Woods, making Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest relevant policies to consider as well. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 17:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The things you stated Chris (&'Gene93k') it isn't entirely true, and I can't understand why are you saying all of those things... If you had really 'googled': Tim Woods Aberystwyth University or Timothy Woods Aberystwyth University, you'll get this on the front of the page: Aberystwyth University - Woods, Tim www.aber.ac.uk › ... › Staff - Tim has been the organiser of several conferences at Aberystwyth University, including the the British Association of American Studies 2003 Conference at ...

Also wiki states: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)section 5 you will see. 5. "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research (or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon)." He is a well known academic, he happens to be the Dean of Arts at Aberystwyth University, Wales- UK.

My only mistake was that I didn't publish it(contribute the article) under the Wikipedia:Notability (academics) because I didn't know how to do that...maybe you can show me. But please have a look at it:

Check this out: http://www.aber.ac.uk/en/english/staff/tww/

--KaterinaM 20:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

unsigned comment added by Kat2012 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For purposes of this discussion, I'd say to delete for failing the general notability guidelines due to lack of secondary sourcing. The bigger concern right now is that the article is a copyright violation: the text is from Woods' CV page, which is legended "©2012 Aberystwyth University"—and for which I'm prepared to speedy delete the article. —C.Fred (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Ford

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

Article fails on all three bullet points for WP:PORNBIO: No significant awards to his name, no unique contributions, and no notable mentions in mainstream media.

Keep - satisfies WP:BASIC - "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Several independent published sources. Connection to the Smiths makes this an interesting article. Wikipedia would not be improved by deleting this article. Ground Zero | t 17:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The connection to The Smiths appears to be debunked per the talk page so I've deleted it. Also, there's no evidence that the depth of coverage in any of these sources is substantial. None of the sources are online, and the only link is dead, so the extent of the coverage in the sources cannot be verified. Judging the by the titles of the sources, my guess would be that the coverage isn't centered around Leo Ford. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 00:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: The extent of coverage in the sources can absolutely be verified. Publishers and ISBN numbers are provided. You have just chosen not to leave your computer to verify the sources. There is nothing at all in WP:RS that requires that sources be online to be reliable: "The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online." Wikipedia:Offline sources says (in bold text, no less), "Even though Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, there is no distinction between using online versus offline sources." In fact, you should not believe everything you read on the internet. An AfD cannot rely on your "guess" about what the sources say or don't say. Ground Zero | t 01:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Just like an AfD cannot rely on my "guess" about what the sources say, an AfD cannot rely on your "assumption" what they say either. This is the trouble with printed media when it doesn't have an online link such as to Google books. Many articles when they do quote printed media include the relevant quoted material to account for this quandary, which none of these cites do. Only two of them even mention the page, so these cites wouldn't even be acceptable in a traditional bibliography. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 03:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment: If you disagree with what WP:RS and Wikipedia:Offline sources say about offline sources, you can propose changes to those policies on the appropriate talk changes and see if you can get consensus for the changes. Until that happens, offline sources remain valid, notwithstanding your preference for online sources. If you think the sources don't say what they are purported to say, Wikipedia:Offline sources has this advice: "Sometimes, the use of an offline source will be challenged. Be sure to assume good faith for the user who cited the offline source. They might even be able to provide you a scan or an excerpt from that source. Consider visiting your local library to obtain a copy. Even if the library doesn't have that particular book or journal article, it might be available through interlibrary loan. Also consider posting an inquiry on the relevant WikiProject, because some interested editors might have a copy of that source. The volunteers at WikiProject Resource Exchange might be able to help you coordinate your search." Ground Zero | t 09:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment. First of all, essays are not Wikipedia policy. WP:OFFLINE is not policy; Wikipedia does not require you to go to a library to challenge an offline source. Verifiability is policy however, and offline sources are not exempt. I never challenged these offline sources as being in bad faith (even though that's irrelevant), I challenged them as being unverifiable because they are. They are poor citations; had these citations been crafted in a more verifiable manner such as including the text of the applicable reference then they wouldn't be an issue. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 13:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Yes, Verifiability is policy and it allows offline sources, see WP:Verifiability#Access_to_sources: "The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries." --Cavarrone (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Further comment: I find it bizarre that you removed the reference to a published source, Simon Goddard's book, and commented "Per Talk page cite". The "talk page cite to which you refer is a fan site. ("This site is unofficial and not affiliated with Morrissey. Morrissey-solo was created by me (davidt / David Tseng / david@morrissey-solo.com) and I have been maintaining the site with help from moderators and users that contribute to the site. I have been a fan since 1986 when I was a junior in high school. I'm currently a web developer working at Yahoo! and live in Los Angeles.") A fan site is not a reliable source. Ground Zero | t 01:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. You are correct, I mistook that source as being maintained by official representatives. It's not and therefore should not be considered reliable. I did remove the text again because it is a rumor. I'll elaborate further on the article's talk page, as that is the more appropriate place to discuss this matter. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 14:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

WP:PORNBIO, despite having a nice all-caps redirect, has not been established as a Wikipedia policy or guideline, and quite properly so. To establish PORNBIO as policy would be to enshrine a bias against inclusion of information about gay porn and to establish a bias in favor of heterosexual porn. To see why this is so, one need only look at the current (re-!)nomination. Leo Ford was one of the most prominent gay porn actors of the 1980s. He died in 1991. PORNBIO would have us judge his importance based on whether he won a "significant industry award", such as the AVN award. Yet the GayVN Awards weren't started until 1998, eight years after his death. It's like assessing the importance of silent movie stars based on how many Academy Awards they won. Basing an assessment of importance on such industry awards introduces a bias towards inclusion of more recent actors, as the awards have multiplied and weren't given out (at all, let alone in great numbers) during the period of history we are interested in for this article. And a requirement that gay actors be featured multiple times in "mainstream" media again reinforces bias against appropriate coverage of gay subject matter: the correct criteria would be coverage in gay media (which of course Leo Ford had before his death), and in scholarly studies, or what passes for them, of gay pornography.

Is Leo Ford made "more notable" because he appeared in the first commercial production of a safe sex video? (Life Guard, 1985) (Escoffier, Jeffrey (2009), Bigger Than Life: The History of Gay Porn Cinema from Beefcake to Hardcore, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Running Press, p. 212) I don't particularly think so; he's notable because he was popular, but those who adhere to PORNBIO could assert—if they bother to do the research—that this is a unique contribution to a specific genre.

Is he more notable because Andy Warhol writes an unflattering review of a Leo Ford porn video in The Warhol Diaries? (Warhol, Andy (1989), The Andy Warhol Diaries, New York: Hachette, p. "Saturday, July 13, 1985") I don't particularly think so; he's notable because he was popular, but those who adhere to PORNBIO could possibly argue that it does. If they are aware of it, of course. But that's the problem: those doing the judging are unfamiliar with the subject matter, and haven't bothered doing the research they would need to do to make an informed decision about notability.

In a biography of Divine, Ford is described as the (then) "gay America's current wet dream. The six-foot, twenty-year-old blond was on exhibit everywhere: in gay movie theaters, on best-selling videos and in show-all magazine photo spreads. He was a highly marketable commodity as the most popular young stud in gay—and some bisexual—porno movies." (Jay, Bernard (1993), Not Simply Divine: Beneath the Make-Up, Above the Heels and Behind the Scenes with a Cult Superstar, New York: Fireside, p. 203) Does the fact that Ford was a sexual partner of a famous transvestite actor make him more notable. Well, arguably, though it doesn't seem to be taken into account by PORNBIO, but I would still suggest that it's Ford's ubiquity in the 1980s (as attested to by this passage) rather than that that would make Wikipedia a poorer reference if the information on him is censored out of it.

Does having an imdb page, such as this one, mean we should think more highly of an actor's notability? I think probably not, but the consequence of that is that Wikipedia will be a less informative reference source than is imdb.

Is Leo Ford more notable because such newspapers as the Bay Area Reporter and Frontiers covered his off-screen activities, such as fundraising for the KS Foundation? (see, for example, Allen White's profile, "Cover Story: Leo Ford" in the September 9, 1982 Bay Area Reporter). Does the inclusion of his September 1982 event at the Nob Hill Cinema ("porn sensation Leo Ford performed his erotic stage show with the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence to benefit the reprinting of the Sisters' War on VD pamphlet") indicate his relevance? (Román, David (1998), Acts of Intervention: Performance, Gay Culture, And AIDS, Indiana: Indiana University Press, pp. 14–5) Does the fact that his obituary appeared in The Advocate argue for his importance in gay culture? Yes, I think so; the difficulty being that people shooting "straight" from the hip—rather than having an informed opinion—about notability will be unfamiliar with the basic information needed for such an assessment.

As Ground Zero points out, there's no need for the application of a proposed, non-established guideline here in any case: the subject's notability is established by the "multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" which were already cited when this nomination was made. - Outerlimits (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First of all, I'll dispel the fallacious claim that WP:PORNBIO is not an official guideline. It most certainly is, and has been for quite some time. The policy is currently being discussed in the talk pages, but that does not suspend the guideline. It will not be changed until there is a consensus agreement on a policy change, if there is any at all. Until then, WP:PORNBIO is the appropriate guideline to follow. Your issues with WP:PORNBIO should be discussed on the talk pages along with everyone else. Discussing them here is not constructive since there is already an ongoing community discussion on the policy page and it is also inappropriate since AfD discussions are not platforms to debate policies and guidelines.

That being said, a pornographic actor doesn't need to satisfy all three WP:PORNBIO criteria, they only need to satisfy one. Leo Ford doesn't satisfy any of them. No awards, no unique contributions, no mainstream media features.
Being popular doesn't make you notable. Being popular, being sourced, and being featured in sources makes you notable. I don't see any evidence of that for Leo Ford.
The safe sex video you mentioned doesn't appear to be notable or significant. Life Guard (1985) has an IMDb page that doesn't mention Leo Ford and also has no description available.
Having an IMDb page does not merit having a Wikipedia page. This is a common argument used for AfD discussions for non-notable actors and it is never successful. Wikipedia is not a specialized directory like IMDb and Wikipedia's purpose is not to replicate IMDb. IMDb does just fine at being IMDb.
Leo Ford had a brief relationship with Divine, as is mentioned on his page. This appears to be Ford's only association with any sort of notability. I would suggest that this article be merged with Divine, but it's an incredibly insignificant part of his article. The only salvageable thing I can think of is a Redirect to Divine, but I don't really endorse that myself. I still think this page is not encyclopedic and should be deleted. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 00:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am generally in favor of tightening up the requirements for notability in this subject generally. But in this particular case, I think basic notability has been fully shown. The problem with those notable at the beginning of a field--before the later-customary ways of recognition become established--is an interesting one, & I don't remember it being raised in any context before. It will generally be taken care of once the historians & sociologists get to the subject, but in some areas that may be a long time coming. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per - wait for it - WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:IGNORE. I propose that the argument raised above about the problems with WP:PORNBIO, especially the point about there having been no awards he could have won during his career, make it common sense to ignore WP:PORNBIO in this case. In my opinion, there's enough sourcing for him to satisfy (weakly) WP:GNG in any case. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Divine. The only legitimate claim to notability for this person comes from his association with the actor. There's nothing to indicate he was notable as a porn performer -- despite what Outerlimits claims, above, industry awards were given out for gay porn for most of Ford's career; for example, the XRCO gave awards for most of the 1980s, and AVN gave awards to gay porn beginning with 1985 releases (the GayVN name was created in 1998, but the awards existed for more than a decade before that. Industry "halls of fame" also recognize performers of the 1980s. The lack of recognition of Ford's work, by the porn industry itself, is a strong signal that he was not notable as a porn performer. Similarly, the extensive history of the genre cited in the article, Jeffrey Escoffier's Bigger Than Life, does not treat Ford as a performer of any significance, but has only a passing mention of him in a quotation from advertising copy for a film under discussion. The other book citations are even less consequential: one author saw him perform at a live sex show in San Francisco; Andy Warhol fell asleep watching one of his porn films. Nothing there resembling the "substantial" coverage required by the GNG. The urban legend that his butt appears on a record cover might be interesting, but it isn't enough to hang an article on, especially since it doesn't seem to have been considered substantial enough to mention in the article on the record itself. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Just want to give this !vote a bump. I think it's the most compelling out of any comment so far and the additional research done was quite useful to back up the reasoning behind it. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 16:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily notable enough.RafikiSykes (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as far as I can see, a well-referenced article. Cavarrone (talk) 06:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not a real bio - it does not even contain the person's real name. This is just a shameless commercial plug to sell more movies. BO; talk 21:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does using a pseudonym have to do with Wikipedia's notability guidelines? Rlendog (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G5. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Islamists in the 2011-2012 Syrian Uprising

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

This should be pretty cut-and-dried. User:Klavisioni, the page creator, is a CheckUser-confirmed sockpuppet of User:ChronicalUsual, a blocked editor who has created upwards of 60 socks now to continue his POV-pushing crusade in Syria-related topics. The only other substantial edits to this page were also made by socks (though one IP, User:149.154.159.142, remains officially unconfirmed). I would speedy this the way I've done other articles CU socks have created, but that IP user keeps deleting the speedy template claiming no one can prove he's the blocked user in question (CU uses an open proxy server to dodge potential rangeblocks and attempt to confound CheckUser, as administrators have noted previously). Anyway, the page is absolute POV bogus, it's almost entirely the work of a user editing in violation of a block, and it should be deleted posthaste. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Even tough most of the work seem to have been written by a banned user, it is still true and is sourced. Kudzu is member of a small group who is trying to edit out any mention of extremists islamists in the page related to the Syrian problem. The page is very relevant to the situation. If there is some problem with it fix it, but as a page it is fine and relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.154.159.142 (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving us ChronicalUsual's perspective, as usual. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ta Noutri

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

Notability, seems to be a defunct yahoo group with no sources, see also Sylvia Etienne In ictu oculi (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't even find evidence that this site exists. Nothing pops up on Google. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 16:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The website's dead, occupied by a domain squatter; I can't find any evidence of notability. Dricherby (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we're given no reason why this is a notable website. Ducknish (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this site/organisation ever achieved notability. AllyD (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. The official website doesn't exist as well. SL93 (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:links are dead, if they ever lived. Abulubada (Abulubada) 23:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ta Noutri used to be a website, not just yahoo group, but it does not exists any more... it had transformed into SEMAT Ankhty. I planned to recreate it and move on new article-name, I just didn't have time to do it.
Long story short, I do not have (as author of the article) any objection against deletion. It needs to be completely rewrited and renamed... do it from here or from zero doesn't matter.
Therefore voting is not necesary... just do it.
The-first-author-of-the-article 20:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Regardless of where one lives, Notability for Wikipedia purposes is based on available independent, reliable sources, and if there are none, then the topic generally does not belong here. Rlendog (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pinky blue mall

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

Not notable mall by SPA. I've already left them a message about their username, but regardless, Wikipedia isn't a business directory. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Search doesn't produce any substantial information about the mall. Can't see its significance, it is just another mall. Not to mention the content seems complete copy-paste from some source. Samar (Talk . Contributions) 14:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unsourced article. There is no indication that this is considered a major mall by the standards of Lagos, one of the largest urban areas in the world. It sounds more like the equivalent of a strip mall in the U.S. And even for major malls, Wikipedia would not include a store-by-store description of the product lines. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Seems to me as a spam. There is really very few, poor sources about this article. Dipankan ^{(Have a chat?)} 16:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My searches for reliable sources got only one passing mention. A Google Images search suggests that Pinky Blue is medium to large indoor mall, but I can find nothing verifiable. • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dont delete . The article has been edited accordingly. There isnt much information generally about Nigerian shopping malls or complexes on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovetotravel2012 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete . if you do not live in Lagos, Nigeria, you cannot authoritatively access what mall is notable or not.I live in Lagos!(Franky2001talk

What we use to determine what is notable and not notable is WP:CORP, which is the guideline for determining which companies should be included, and which aren't. If you can demonstrate how this passes this criteria, as we expect of all companies, please tell us. If it doesn't, then it is generally not considered "notable" for the purpose of including an article on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The topic at this time appears to fail Wikipedia's General notability guideline for inclusion in the encyclopedia. After several searches, not finding significant coverage in reliable sources. I found this article, but it is only a passing single mention of the mall. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Rlendog (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bradford murders

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

I'm thinking this is a case of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. I appreciate there's a case to argue that serial killers are inherently notable, but I honestly do not believe this one is. There was one flurry of coverage at the time of the arrest, and a second when he pleaded guilty and was sentenced. Nothing else besides. There's no WP:PERSISTENCE. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A prior discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Griffiths, made during the height of the news hype, produced an overwhelming keep consensus. I'd suggest that was directly influenced by the temporary press coverage at the time. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The article is well sourced and the extensive coverage in UK national media clearly establishes notability. I do not believe that WP:NEWSPAPER applies, as the article reads to me as a non-sensational summary of a historical event, not a newspaper report about the latest happenings. Dricherby (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's perfectly well enough wirtten, but is it notable? That is the question here. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Absolutely! As per WP:GNG, the case "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (multiple articles in UK national media discussing solely this case). As per WP:NOTTEMPORARY, ongoing coverage is not necessary to maintain notability. Dricherby (talk) 13:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Furthermore, a quick Google News search for "Stephen Griffiths Bradford" gives references this year: an article in the Daily Mail about the Griffiths slashing his wrists in prison (2012-01-22) and a BBC piece about policing prostitution in Bradford, with Griffiths mentioned in the introduction. I think this satisfies WP:PERSISTENCE. Dricherby (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very heavily covered in the media and therefore clearly notable. A quick read of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER will establish that this article does not fall within its scope. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was the top news story at the time for several days before and after the arrest and trial. This is more than routine coverage, so meets WP:GNG. Lugnuts (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NTEMP: If something was ever notable then it's notable forever, and this is not a biography.—S Marshall T/C 20:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Benchmark for news-based articles is WP:EVENT, and this passes it easily. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per GNG and EVENT.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is about what a serial killer did. I am glad to say that such are rare in UK, so that this is notable. However the article needs to be recast inot something more than a series of news clips. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eirik Mortensen

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

Contested PROD, by the author Theprestige82 (talk · contribs) with no rationale given. The article is a possible hoax but was declined as speedy G3. Nevertheless the player has not made his first team debut therefore fails WP:NFOOTBALL & has not received significant media coverage & also fails WP:GNG. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 11:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as admin who contested the speedy (not a blatant hoax) - definitely non-notable, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it's not a hoax then it fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a Norwegian, I have really tried to find out if this is a hoax or not. According to the list at the bottom of this article, Eirik Mortensen was not one of 75 Norwegian footballers below 22 years playing abroad (including amateur level) per February 2012. This article from a random Norwegian localpaper from March 2011, tells me that there had been a Eirik Mortensen in Japan from September 2010 till that date, but nothing about him playing football. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks suspiciously like a hoax to me, but in any case it fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --sparkl_!sm ^hey! 19:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy non-controversial close, redirect page to existing article. matt (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Council election, 2012

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

this is a duplicate page, there is another page with election results available here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_Borough_Council_election,_2012 ReadingLad (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Djplaydoh weir

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

Lack of notability as per GNG (and possibly also fails WP:MUSIC), I cannot find an independent source by Google search. Article initially was nominated for BLPPROD, after which a source was inserted (which was from Facebook). Also possible autobiography/COI. jfd34 (talk) 09:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Probably also a hoax as the article's creator has inserted an introduction about a fictional Japanese character who "developed strange powers which have thought to have been derived from chronic gayness". Dricherby (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not sure this article is about a manga character or a DJ, or a DJ named after the character. Search for either doesn't provide any content for an encyclopedia. The only reference provided is a facebook page, and the article is created by a user with the same name. Samar (Talk . Contributions) 15:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per Samar. I can't imagine this being anything but a hoax. --APShinobi^{My Contribs} 23:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:NEO and WP:COATRACK issues are the major causes for concern here. However, there is general agreement that the article contains some decent content which might be transferred to other articles. If anyone would like the article userfied for the purpose of distributing some of its content to other articles, please let me know on my talk page. -Scottywong | babble _ 17:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drop weapon

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

Neologism, mentioned in passing in the news many years ago. Search for this phrase reveal almost entirely unrelated results. The term itself not not appear in most references, or appears only in passing. Neutrality^talk 15:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Last time it was nominated, it read like a news article but the present article is just a dicdef. Dricherby (talk) 10:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not a dictionary. Borock (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been restored with material that was already in it in previous incarnations. This material has been cited with citations, some of which were already in the article, some of which had also previously been deleted. So no harm done yet, but it would indeed be an injustice to delete an article because deletionists had deleted so much of its content as uncited, without due care and diligence of using the sources already in the article or history.

I agree that it read like a news article at last nomination. Specifically, an armed forces blog. That has all been cleaned up now; just the facts.

The article's content is valuable and notable beyond doubt. I am hard pressed to think of a different title, however desirable that might be. My best suggestion is, Planting of false evidence in the Iraq War, but you can see how that merely replaces one problem with its counterpart. The current title has the casual slang word instead of false evidence, but false evidence does not indicate the military nature of the term. And neither title includes the concept of Baiting. In the end, I think Drop weapon or Drop gun is best. Anarchangel (talk) 10:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the 'drop gun' suggestion, I retract that. It comes from this article about the related subject of police planting evidence (the 'ham sandwich'). Anarchangel (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move. It looks much better, now, but I'm concerned that, of the four sources, the Washington Post and Associated Press articles only mention the phrase "drop weapon" once each, the Time article doesn't even include the word "drop" and the letter from the congressman is essentially repost of the Washington Post article. I don't think that establishes the term "drop weapon" as notable and it seems to be only a small part of the wider practice of "baiting". I'm not sure if this is the right place to discuss a rename but how about "Baiting (military)"? Definitely not "drop gun" because none of the sources uses that term. Dricherby (talk) 10:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't this just create a new neologism? Wikipedia is not in the business of identifying trends, compiling examples, and then giving them a unity outselves under some new term. To me, this seems to come close to WP:SYNTH. Neutrality^talk 15:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, as the media has already compiled these things under the term "baiting". So we wouldn't be creating a neologism, just using an existing term (which I accept may, itself, be a neologism) and I don't think we'd be synthesizing, either. Dricherby (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism The material in the article seems more aimed at showing usage of the term in the Iraq War than of expository material for its meaning - put the neologism as needed in the article where the events are mentioned, and not use this definition article as a COATRACK as it is currently. Collect (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the policy of the Asymmetric Warfare Group to advise snipers to bait Iraqis with "detonation cords, plastic explosives and ammunition" then kill them once they handled the items, and the use of drop weapons to 'frame' dead Iraqis, and examples of the practice of this policy, are of as much significance and have received as much coverage as the name for these practices. However, the three are inseparable, and there is no WP article I know of that deals with those incidents. And as policy, practice, and name are not separable, they are not coat and rack, but a single seamless whole. Anarchangel (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "For example, neither the Washington Post not the AP sources uses the word 'drop.' " Actually, both use "drop weapon" exactly once and the Washington Post uses "drop item" twice, too. Dricherby (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right. Neutrality^talk 02:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →B music ian 03:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to false evidence and the article about this particular incident (I can't find that article but that incident would seem notable itself) and not this single-purpose WP:COATRACK article. The actual concept would be false evidence which has a nice train of redirects to it. That subject is more than sufficient to cover all of the slang terms people come up with for the same concept. As for this very specific use of the term, just because the newspapers used the same term doesn't mean that term is uniquely notable beyond what we already have at false evidence. Especially when it's clear that what this article really wants to discuss is a specific incident. Shadowjams (talk) 09:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ: if anything, it seems to me this singularity of definition is a desirable attribute of this article; your portrayal of this as some stealthy attempt to foist PoV on unsuspecting readers is misguided (and if you did not intend that meaning, then be advised that COATRACK does have that meaning, and to be more careful when quoting that rule in the future). I agree 'drop weapon' is a "very specific use", but not "of the term", as that implies that, for example, "ham sandwich" could be used interchangeably with 'drop weapon'. They are indeed related concepts, but by no means the same. They have small but important differences: one uses AK-47s, the other, Saturday Night Specials; one is the breach of military law; the other civilian. And they have truly profound differences: According to baited Iraqis were in no way a part of military procedure until they picked up that bait (not a stop and search or a warrant), the direct superiors of the perpetrators are alleged to have ordered the use of baiting (hopefully, a big difference), and baited Iraqis were killed because they picked up the bait (again, hopefully a big difference, and not because they were believed to have drawn a weapon). And I am sure more differences can be pointed out.

And once again, as has happened so many times before in other AfDs and article discussions, I find myself confronted with the awkwardly inappropriate recommendation that material be moved to an article that does not exist (but this time, within the same AfD as my correction of another such mistake). There probably should be articles about the baiting and drop weapon incidents on Wikipedia, but there are none. It should be needless to say, and in fact I have said it already above, but it appears that I had better make it crystal clear (or at worst, repeat myself): there are multiple, widespread and systemic practices discussed in the Drop weapon article, of which the multiple incidents in the article are examples. Anarchangel (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEO: "An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy." I feel this article does not demonstrate notability of the term and engages in WP:SYNTH, using tangentially-connected examples of false evidence in order to further the standpoint that "drop weapon" is a significant concept. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:43, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Primary source material?" Nah. Examples of the uses of drop weapons are "tangentially-connected" to the term "drop weapons"? Again, no further argument is needed to reply to these spurious claims of SYNTH. Unfounded assertions by editors at AfD would be fine if we could just delete them, as we do unverified statements in articles. Instead we have to waste time answering them.

Drop weapons and baiting in the Iraq War has none of the problems that are advanced by this wikilawyering, to be sure, but it is unnecessary. Furthermore, I believe the deletion argument's record of unfounded claims shows it is concerned with obfuscation, not revelation; if this were true, it would in fact be inconvenienced by a move to a more specific title. Anarchangel (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find it astonishing that you prominently display "Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement" on your userpage and yet repeatedly rely on a mixture of ad-homs, contradictions and long-winded rambles which attempt to filibuster deletion discussions presenting the appearance of an intense debate. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 06:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictions, I will admit, such as "Nah". But it is rarely easy and never mandatory to do anything but contradict mere assertions (such as "primary source material"), as there is no argument to address. A contradiction in that case is just an assertion in return. Anarchangel (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Drop bear. Confusion with a more notable subject. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:22, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent suggestion. Drop weapon contains no "In popular culture" section so it's clearly the more worthless of the two articles. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 06:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So much for relisting. Seeking closer who wants to do what is right, not wait for the AfD to be padded with enough votes supporting their opinion. Anarchangel (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you're seeking a closer who will ignore consensus and guidelines in favour of the little-known (but eminently enforceable) WP:ANARCHANGELISRIGHT policy. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 06:23, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given the total lack of consensus so far, it would take a long time for enough !votes to be cast to support the purported biased closer... Dricherby (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism - While the incidents mentioned in the article might well be notable, creating an neological coatrack such as this is not the way to mention them. Perhaps the practice should be mentioned under Asymmetric Warfare Group? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UK Price comparison of major chains

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

We are not a mechanism for price comparisons, per se. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC) Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Outside our scope. I couldn't find an exact mention of price comparisons on "What Wikipedia is not" but the article would fail as being either a blog or a directory.--Dmol (talk) 07:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTCATALOG explicitly says "Wikipedia is not a price comparison serice". Author admits page will contain OR, though doesn't use the O-word. Dricherby (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dricherby; the statement is quite detailed about Wikipedia not being intended for use by someone interested in comparing prices. dci | TALK 16:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article isn't of an encyclopedic nature. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 16:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not a price comparison service. SL93 (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably well-intentioned but totally unmaintainable and unencyclopædic. bobrayner (talk) 03:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. However, the fact that no article on him exists on the Hungarian WP is not a reason to delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Istvan Bokros

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

Cannot find any reference anywhere. There is no similar article in the Hungarian Wiki which otherwise is very inclusive on this topic, and no matches found with Google. ELEKHH^T 06:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ELEKHH^T 06:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: huwiki does not have this article. Also, no websites write about this person. ThereFOUR (talk) 09:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The reasons above seem valid, although the lack of an article in the Hungarian Wikipedia is not necessarily enough to warrant deletion. I would agree, however, that there are not enough reliable sources mentioning this subject to keep it on Wikipedia. dci | TALK 16:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bez's Madchester Anthems: Sorted Tunes from Back in the Day

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

I found no significant coverage. This album fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close No arguements have been presented for deletion other than the nominators, after 14 days of listing. Lugnuts (talk) 13:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - as has been noted below, article's claims of notability and not supported by reliable sources. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

G-WAN

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

Previously deleted following a discussion. The current version is a substantial improvement IMO and includes an independent reference showing notability. Previous spam elements have been removed.

The article was nominated for speedy as it was a re-creation of an article deleted following a discussion. I declined the speedy on the basis that the article had improved significantly. However, I am nominating it again for discussion given that it had only recently been discussed (March 16).

Suggest: Keep. Delete and salt RA (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest taking it to WP: DELREV instead of here. AfD exists to delete articles, not explain why they should be kept. I would make a speedy keep close (because you, the nominator, have failed to advance an argument for deletion), but I don't know how and people would yell at me for closing a discussion too early. ChromaNebula (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not totally familiar with all the deletion protocols but it sounded to me like WP: DELREV was the more appropriate option too given the previous deletion. In any case, I would favor deletion because the fact there's an About.com vignette written by a guy who downloaded it does not seem like any improvement over the original deletion discussion. To give an idea of how unheard of this is outside of this guy/company's own promotion, yesterday when I was looking into this I did site searches on both Computerworld and Infoworld and got zero hits for both "g-wan" and "trustleap" as well as getting nothing substantial in the first few pages of a general Google search. I am an internet software developer and I have never heard of this web server. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 02:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel there's a bit of confusion here. True, G-WAN doesn't have a lion share of web server market, but :

1. You get quite a bit of hits typing "g-wan" in Google, like: (a) tech.slashdot.org/story/09/11/29/.../g-wan-another-free-web-server (b) cplus.about.com/b/.../g-wan-superfast-webserver-for-c-scripting.htm (c) nbonvin.wordpress.com/tag/gwan/ .. etc, etc..

2. You get a lot of hits and discussions regarding this web server on StackOverflow.com/ServerFault.com -

and some of the authors really like the "C-scripts" features. The server existed since 2007, and there are actually production sites using it.

3. "Trustleap" is not the right term to search for - it's just the name of the legal entity in Switzerland, as I understand, not a product name.

4. Some of very large CDN's in the US - like Limelight - actually use G-WAN for certain very intensive tasks like Edge Queries/Beaconing.

5. Anyway, I am trying to make a point that G-WAN is not some very un-noticeable piece of software which has no value. It existed for over 5 years, and there are quite a few people who used it and liked it, not "just "downloaded it".

I respect the previous editor point of view, but would still like to see a reasonable consensus. It seems a lot more natural thing to do than just blindly deleting it. The current G-WAN entry has really nothing "promotional" in it other than asking to have an entry for something which has been developed for over 5 years, and actually shows some very good results compared to traditionally-architected servers. Novel approaches should be noted, not ignored - that would be a more positive take on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.144.253.33 (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC) — 75.144.253.33 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep We use G-WAN for Comet applications, and I would say, speed-wise, it's a even faster than lighttpd. True, the C-interface is a bit unusual for web development these days, but if you're a strong C/C++ programmer - you'll have fun playing with G-WAN. — 108.71.88.217 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete Pretty much the same as the last AFD. The only sources here are to blogs, unreliable sources such as about.com, and salem-news.com, which is not a newspaper - it describes itself as a 'exclusively Web news organization'. These are not the multiple reliable sources required by the General notability guideline - MrOllie (talk) 14:54, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article about G-WAN should have been on Wiki many years ago. And I am surprised people take a one-sided view of what G-WAN is. It's not really a web server like nginx - this is not the point of inclusion or exclusion. It's an ecosystem of modules around a multi-core kernel, like one of the fastest NoSQL solutions you can get:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2376846/which-key-value-store-is-the-most-promising-stable StackOverflow clearly shows how valuable it can be for NoSQL applications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.164.56.1 (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting because the "keep" opinions by the IPs are unhelpful; they do not address our inclusion criteria per WP:GNG etc. Can we have opinions by people familiar with our standards, please? Sandstein 06:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve the article. G-WAN is a well-known piece of Internet technology with likely hundreds of reputable sources discussing it. It'd probably be easier to just go Google it than to discuss deletion. Omnibus (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You say that there are "likely" hundreds of valid sources, but could you just link to one? The product's development team who is/are posting to the article's talk page can't seem to come up with much more than blog posts and forum discussions, nor did my Googling or targeted searching of IT industry trade magazines before this weird deletion nomination requesting that the article be kept was made. If the product's developers are having trouble getting industry publications that already cover fairly obscure web servers to cover their product, Wikipedia isn't the place to start. ❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 16:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In just a cursory glance at the article, more than one has already been linked for you. Surely, if you are interested in a technology article like this you have heard of Netcraft, StackOverflow, and About.com? I would hope so. Here, it was covered on About.com and notability is not temporary as per Wikipedia guidelines so "once is enough". Omnibus (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I will say that I was surely wrong about the hundreds of notable sources. It's certainly becoming a hot topic on web tech forums for having relatively little mainstream coverage. None of this is particularly relevant of course, since just one GWAN-specific About.com article makes it notable enough for inclusion given the inclusion criteria of WP:GNG Omnibus (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, web forum mentions or a guy at a content farm having downloaded it once do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources". (Like, seriously? About.com? A site whose current headline is "Your Perfect Prom Look"?) Netcraft coverage would be a single substantial source but where is the link you're talking about? I am getting zero hits in the Netcraft.com site search and a Google search of that domain. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 05:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; all the listed references are random one-off 'we benchmarked this' or blog posts by random people on the internet. The salem-news.com link is sort of notability-establishing, but it reads basically like a press release. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 06:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article probably needs to focus on G-WAN being a tool rather than a "narrow-defined web server". Looks like a great low latency solution for Trading and Scientific apps. Here's the discussion: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7683793/what-is-the-principle-of-low-latency-in-trading-application

The preceding unsigned comment was made by User:Sfmist (contribs), the creator of the current G-WAN article, who in the talk page identified themselves by signing a message with "Kind regards, G-wan team". --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 23:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, Stack Overflow is a web forum, and so is not considered a reliable source. Postings there do not build the case for notability. Secondly, the author(s) of G-wan have been sanctioned in the past for advertising at Stack Overflow, (He posted to complain about it here) so we must consider any postings there that reference G-wan to be highly suspect. - 75.130.105.1 (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/4752 - Looks like a very cool server. Here's a LinuxJournal article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.164.56.1 (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC) {{[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: 69.164.56.1 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

Are you referring to the spam in the comments section?

I'm getting the feeling there's little or no reliable sources out there on this. I've stuck me suggestion to keep. --RA (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google search for "g-wan web server": 2,440,000 results. Also, the About.com notability - a site which existed since 1995, and has 50 million unique visitors in March-2012 (behind Wikipedia.org with 88 mln) - could not be categorically dismissed: About.com. But, arguably, some of above-cited references may lack an objective and impartial view of the matter. Suggestion: distill the article and some references, tone down the discussion, and keep a revised version. Salisburylawn (talk • contribs) 06:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC) — Salisburylawn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Google search results for:

"a-wan web server": About 8,030,000 results (0.29 seconds)
"b-wan web server": About 5,600,000 results (0.21 seconds)
"c-wan web server": About 4,010,000 results (0.28 seconds)
"d-wan web server": About 3,410,000 results (0.29 seconds)
"e-wan web server": About 2,770,000 results (0.25 seconds)
"f-wan web server": About 2,430,000 results (0.27 seconds)
... etc.

Apart from the About.com reference are there any independent sources for this software? It doesn't look like it. Also, I am losing faith at the number of single-purpose accounts casting keep !votes here. --RA (talk) 09:00, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Ok, this is just a search query glitch, but "g-wan web server" (literal string) yields - 121,000 results. Including a number of Software Magazines published in France. Salisburylawn (talk • contribs) 09:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of which, incredibly, seem to be self-published sources or web-spam. "...a number of Software Magazines published in France" Link please? --RA (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Sfmist account has added a link to the article: http://www.programmez.com/actualites.php?id_actu=7925 which does go to the site of what would probably be a reliable source, but the page doesn't appear to be a magazine article and seems to be a bullet list of marketing points rather than anything technical. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 16:33, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least 2 links: (1) Decouvrez-le-serveur-Web-G-WAN, (2) Web-Ultra-Rapide Salisburylawn —Preceding undated comment added 19:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

And also in Ubuntu Programming Reference (under 'Interpreters'): help.ubuntu.com/community/Programming: G-WAN: Fast C Interpreter. (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Salisburylawn[reply]

The programmez links state that they are reprinting information from the vendor, the ubuntu link is to a page on their community wiki, which anyone may edit. In fact, we can see here] that an account belonging to the developer of G-wan added that link to the ubuntu page. These are not reliable sources, so they don't build the case for notability. That these are the best sources available is disheartening. - MrOllie (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the About.com reference, these are terrible sources. Indeed, I'm getting a bad taste of WP:SPAM about all of these "references" and the way they are being pushed — not only here but on the referenced sites themselves. And, I really dislike the idea of Wikipedia being abused in the same way that these community forums (StackOverflow, Ubuntu Community Help, etc.) seem to be. In particular, as someone who in his daily work relies on and contributes to the good will of those communities.

Notability is not something that can — or should — be achieved through persistent spam across open web communities. Delete and salt. --RA (talk) 16:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since this discussion may be (probably will be) re-visited in the future I want to reiterate that I am amazed that anyone regards About.com to be a relevant source in this discussion. Even if you consider that section separate from the overall "Your Perfect Prom Look" and content farm nature of the site, cplus.about.com is just some guy's blog, not a journalistic or academic editorially-reviewed or peer-reviewed publication. He even has a page entitled "Other Blogs You might find Interesting". If we were going to consider blogs significant coverage - which they aren't - the one from the university professor would be a better and more authoritative source. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 19:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think About.com isn't quite "just a blog" as you say, as only actual experts or semi-experts in whatever field are chosen to be editors and they are paid editorial staff instead of hobby bloggers. However, based on the fact that I can't find any mention of G-WAN at Netcraft when it was referenced here by our friend and I too thought I had seen it there; and mainly because I have a feeling that our friend is voting for himself under different pseudonyms... I'm striking my "Keep" vote for now. I consider About.com to be about half a notable source, not quite getting this one up to par yet. Omnibus (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the entire About.com site isn't a blog, only the linked-to cplus.about.com is what is referring to itself as a blog, and I could go along with calling the overall site a content farm generated by semi-experts with no editorial process. I found the Netcraft link eventually: it was added here by the Sfmist account and was a link to uptime.netcraft.net displaying how long the domain gwan.ch has been up in amongst the readings for a list of other domains. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 01:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. If that type of Netcraft "reference" were accepted, nearly every site on the Internet would be included in Wikipedia. I had thought I'd seen it mentioned in the web server roundup along with a myriad of minor players behind Apache and Nginx and lighttpd/Litespeed/Cherokee/etc., but there's no sign of that type of reference at Netcraft yet. Omnibus (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a weak consensus that the sources provided are sufficient. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dumitru Popescu

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

Notability is not established. The links included in the article are either dead, or promotional, or make no mention of Popescu, or are blog posts. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article hid its light under a bushel, but then, looking for such is what nominators are supposed to do WP:BEFORE they nominate. Dumitru Popescu is head and founder of the Cosmonautics and Aeronautics Romanian Association (ARCA). ARCA has never won a X-Prize; however, their participation in the numerous X Prize Foundation events has received international coverage from MSNBC, Astronomy magazine, and Space.com, and lavishly detailed domestic coverage at Cariere Online, as can be seen with no more than a Google News search. Anarchangel (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been somewhat expanded, wikified and cited with six additional secondary sources . Anarchangel (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are not specifically about him, except for one: the ludicrous "Cariere" cruft. Dahn (talk) 13:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:BIO. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VAGUEWAVE. To say nothing of the fact, already stated, that the article now has substantial third party citations, and WP:BIO cannot come here to the AfD and either tell us which part of it is relevant to this article, or why. Anarchangel (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really: the one source on his biography is actually unquotable, per WP:RS. Dahn (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he seems to meet BIO Academics 1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, for the Popescu-Diaconu stabilization method, among other contributions, as well as BIO 3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association - president and founder of ARCA. The Steve 06:03, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His team has. And this according to an unreliable source, that I've taken the liberty of removing to highlight the puffery problem. Dahn (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Cosmonautics and Aeronautics Romanian Association, possibly to the X-Prize subsection. Much of his notability seems to be inherited from ARCA or the things he's designed; he himself doesn't get much coverage. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 17:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's every bit as notable as the organization, which he founded. someone who designs or oiginates notable things is notable. That how people in his profession become notable. DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the GNG, lots of sources, seems to be a well known rocket designer. Notability not inherited from the things he designed?? - That's like saying the author isn't famous, but his books sure are... The Steve 08:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into the Association article - all claim to notability is inherited; the difference is made by "bio" sources that simply fail WP:RS. Dahn (talk) 13:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's that cleared up, then, and we can all go home. Supposedly there ARE NO sources that can possibly cite this article, because all sources not directly about him are trivial coverage, and all sources directly about him are "bio" sources. Anarchangel (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly: coverage is woefully trivial, except for a promotional piece that's basically a blog post. There is no reliable source covering him to any appreciable depth. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- it's rocket science.
Seriously, references establish him as one of the leading experts in his field in his country. Geo Swan (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which references would those be? The passing mentions made here, here, here and here, or this crufty puff piece? - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- He the organization's main spokeperson and is almost as well known as ARCA. Dragos muresan (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Prove it through sources, please. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Two cinema movies are enough? I added them to the page Dragos muresan (talk) 06:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, simply appearing in a film does not establish one's notability; WP:ENT needs to be met for that. What we need is evidence he passes WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I for one am not seeing that, only disparate passing mentions. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I might add that those films are themselves of questionable notability: anyone can write an imdb entry; the other two "sources" are promotional material for the two films... Dahn (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        So you decided by yourself to delete the references AND the paragraph about the movies he is in AND the link to the image with himself. I am not an expert in wiki rules but shouldn't be a consensus about what should be kept and not? Shouldn't an admin take a look at this? Dragos muresan (talk) 04:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        From Wikipedia:Notability_(people) "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject".

http://spacefellowship.com/news/art12913/part-two-dumitru-popescu-builds-his-dream-rocket.html

http://www.9am.ro/stiri-revista-presei/2005-08-26/omul-zilei-dumitru-popescu.html

http://www.alfanews.ro/2011/dumitru-popescu-arca-%E2%80%9Etrimiterea-omului-in-cosmos-ramane-obiectivul-principal-al-organizatiei%E2%80%9D.html

http://www.fishingtonpost.ro/2012/02/12694-invitatul-saptamanii-dumitru-popescu/#.T6ifD-t1Dp4

"The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews".

http://www.space-tourists-film.com/en/home.php

"The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." - Popescu-Diaconu gravitational stabilization method ARCASPACE#Popescu-Diaconu_stabilization_method Dragos muresan (talk) 04:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. 07:12, 10 May 2012 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs | block) deleted page Net friend (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Net friend

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

Article appears to be an essay of some sort. Sole reference is what appears to be a blog, but is entirely in simplified Chinese. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, personal essay with no reliable sources. JIP | Talk 05:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to friending. The article right now is purely OR and is not encyclopedic, but the article title itself would be a good redirect to friending since it does actually pertain to the content in the friending article. Other than that, everything else needs to be tossed.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - essay/how-to content, and redundant to the well-developed existing article on Internet relationship (which Online friendship redirects to). I'd suggest redirecting to that one if this really is a notable term. Robofish (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — not encyclopedic A:-)Brunuś (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn Yash t 101 11:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

On the Radio (Green Day album)

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

Fake? Yash t 101 04:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only if they hacked iTunes. Dru of Id (talk) 08:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete without prejudice. Can be recreated or restored upon request at WP:REFUND. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Serge Schoemaker

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

Looks like a promising young architect, but not notable yet (no major building, no major publication, no major award). Also the article reads like a CV. ELEKHH^T 04:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. ELEKHH^T 04:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He did win the Archiprix International competition; but there really is very little mention of him in most sources I can find. Weak delete. dci | TALK 16:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 17:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MARS model of individual behavior

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

Non-notable behavior model. No indication of notability based on media, book, and scholar searches. ^Bongo_matic 03:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This does appear to be a genuine and notable topic but seems to be a business school thing rather than a psychology thing. I'm seeing a handful of hits in business school texts in the Google Books search and it becomes more apparent if you do a general Google search for "organizational behaviour" "MARS model"; it shows up in many university course outlines and notes. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 03:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no independent indication of notability — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See for example this hit in a book written by a group of Canadian academics and published by the University of Toronto Press six years ago or this Master's thesis and the citation it gives in the bibliography regarding the MARS model, "McShane, S. L., and M. A. Von Linow. Organizational Behavior: Emerging Realities for the Workplace Revolution, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 2005.". Amazon page with author bios for the latter. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 01:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Apan

AfDs for this article:

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

This artist doesn't meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, either under NMUSIC or BASIC. The coverage is inadequate to be considered "significant" or "in-depth", even taken in aggregate. The claim (made in the previous AfD) that her inclusion on compilation albums satisfies the notability requirements is not correct, as there is no suggestion that the compilation albums are themselves notable. ^Bongo_matic 03:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In my opinion, the first AfD was improperly closed as 'no consensus'. In fact, none of the keep arguments were based on policy and the article should have been deleted. Pburka (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was unable to find reliable, secondary sources providing in-depth coverage as would be required to meet WP:GNG. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 01:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close; housekeeping request as per my comment below has been done by user:DGG. Non admin closure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Zasloff

AfDs for this article:

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

I was trying to fox the title of the page and created a new page rather than use the "Move" function which I just found out about — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan.eisen (talk • contribs)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 6. Snotbot t • c » 03:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G6 per this AFD. So tagged. Mistakes can be corrected fairly easily around here. =D --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...aaaaaand it's been taken care of. Time to close up! --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4th Halifax Highland Scout Troop Scots Highland Company

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/4th Halifax Highland Scout Troop Scots Highland Company

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

Not notable Bduke (Discussion) 02:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had considerable problem submitting this to AfD as the title of the article had a slash in it, which confused everything. I moved the article to remove the slash and I hope I have fixed up the AfD pages OK. I will check all the other links. OK, to the details. This article has been discussed in relation to a merge at Talk:Scouting and Guiding in Nova Scotia. A paragraph has been added to Scouting and Guiding in Nova Scotia. There was some support for making this a redirect there, but that was also opposed, both the mention there and the redirect. So I decided to bring it here. Individual Scout Troops or Groups are rarely notable and many have been deleted or redirected over the years. This article however covers other ground. It has several references, but none of those that are easily available talk about the troop and the content of this article. As was said on the merge discussion this material is better suited as a full article for submission to a scholarly journal or a historical society journal. I would accept a redirect, but am more inclined to say it should be deleted. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete rather good job of amateur local historical research, but we don't do that. Not actually more notable than any other small such local group.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stetson ranch

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

Non-notable housing development. The only sources I could find for it were real estate websites, and there's nothing that even approaches significant coverage. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability, or at least none provided by reliable sources. dci | TALK 16:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete searches don't turn up anything that would allow this article to pass WP:GNG Ducknish (talk) 18:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found no significant coverage, SL93 (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nepalese Association in Southeast America

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

Non notable organization, also looks to be copy pasted from somewhere, and largely promotional. Shadowjams (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 10:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 00:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A regional, not national association; I could find no additional sources besides the one in the article, DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Nancy Rue. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Robbins

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

Author and book have no Wikipedia pages therefore not notable. Wilbysuffolk Talk to me 17:08, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I agree that the stub certainly does not give the impression that there is any notability here, I wonder why you didn't PROD this instead of immediately going to AfD 7 min after the article was created by a rather new editor. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of an article ≠ lack of notability. That being said, a preliminary Google search indicates that the author might meet our notability standards. I'm going to do some more looking in that direction (with the idea that if the author is notable enough, this title could redirect to the author's article). LadyofShalott 03:05, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nancy Rue. LadyofShalott 04:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless article. Gives no information at all. Jared-Phill (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 05:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 00:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Nancy Rue. Not a shred of evidence that this fictional character has any out-of-universe notability. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 03:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as the reasonable solution. Normally we would redirect to the book, but as she is the character is an entire series, a redirect to the author is more rational. No reason no keep as a separate article, no reason not to have a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Nancy Rue, providing references can be found. Simply redirecting to Nancy Rue will cause confusion as there is currently nothing on Rue's page about Lily Robbins or the Lily Series. --Wavehunter (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no verifiable evidence of notability to meet the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redirecting to Nancy Rue would not make sense, and that article does not even mention this subject, nor is there anything to indicate that this subject is important enough to Nancy Rue to warrant a mention in that article. Nor is there any evidence of standalone notability. Rlendog (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Glenn Hinson

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

Criminal does not seem particularly notable. Echetus Xe 13:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable per WP:GNG and WP:CRIME. GNews has dozens of articles. Pburka (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG and WP:CRIME.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment err? How does this meet WP:Crime exactly? I will quote the the guidelines:

For perpetrators 1.The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities. 2.The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. ref- Example: Seung-Hui Cho.

Note: A living person accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured. (my emphasis)

Hinson was convicted of rape in 1991, as were no doubt tens of thousands of other rapists, but the only considerable coverage Hinson has received has been for another trial for rape in 2007. He was acquitted and the case was forgotten about. No sustained coverage, not guilty, nothing beyond bog standard reporting of topical news.--Echetus Xe 09:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as run of the mill. Sadly, one out of six women have been raped, and an untold number of men in prison, or by priests, or coaches at Penn State. I don't see how this rapist is notable. Bearian (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please give me guidelines which points towards your personal assumptions?--BabbaQ (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One single conviction for rape doesn't make a person notable.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 05:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by that this artticle should be kept because it does pass WP:GNG and WP:CRIME. The deletion arguments here are weak at best.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, stand by my keep argument. I find news coverage of the subject in every year from 2006-2010, inclusive. Some of the coverage is international. With further work we should be able to find coverage going back to the 1990s. The sustained coverage satisfies WP:GNG. I also note that the nomination is weak at best: "doesn't seem notable" isn't a sound argument. Pburka (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 00:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Convicted 20 years ago, more recently charged with with new offnse and acquitted. Attempt at dangerousness committment failed. Oh, and the same judge both times! Nothing here. EEng (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly does not meet the requirements outlined in WP:PERPETRATOR. I notice this guy has now been sentenced to prison again for gun crime, but Wikipedia isn't here to document every criminal's sordid history - there are lots of multiple offenders in jail! Sionk (talk) 12:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's no indication that the subject meets WP:CRIME; nothing separates him from the crowd, he simply seems to be a run of the mill criminal. Ducknish (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet WP:CRIME and no other basis for notability. Rlendog (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Despite no conviction, his situation appears to have sparked legislation in South Carolina to give repeat sex offenders the death penalty [20][21]. Did these bills pass? --Joshuaism (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter what it sparked, unless coverage of the sparkee happens to also contain substantial, reliable, blah blah blah coverage of the subject under discussion here. EEng (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And about 142/275 words (52%) in the Fox News piece and 52/430 words (12%) in the ABC news piece are about Kenneth Hinson. Seems substantial to me, even if the outrage was misguided and he was set up by two skanky teenagers stealing pot out of his drying room. --Joshuaism (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Nordic Walking Association - INWA

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

The article only references the official pages of the organization, no reliable sources here. Furthermore, the page is promotional and trumpet's the organization's (self-proclaimed) values and scope. Wer900 ^talk_{essay on the definition of consensus} 20:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - they are mentioned in conjunction with Nordic walking, and are a source of statistics in article about Nordic walking. But I cannot find substantial coverage about the organisation. -- Whpq (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 05:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 00:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Udouj

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

Does not meet GNG or specialized notability criteria. I technically contested my own prod by pulling it for a CSD when I could find nothing of value for sources, and the CSD was declined. There is one non-trivial Google hit (to news in his local area only), and the rest of his Google hits for the first three pages are almost all personal pages (Twitter, FB, LinkedIn, Flickr) and mirrors of WP. There is nothing to substantiate anything stated in the article except for one interview (as noted above, and in the refs). Thus, it seems that he is: a "rapper" with no known releases; a "record producer" with no known credits; and a "businessman" with no company (he was apparently a CFO for a small company at one point, but there is no relevant information available, and notability is not inherited anyhow). In short, he meets neither GNG nor any of the specialized criteria for his supposed employment areas. MSJapan (talk) 01:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:43, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 00:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing past a little local interest coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 05:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Codrin Arsene

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

Not quite a random blogger, but definitely below the bar of notability. For sources, we have a blog post, another blog post, three newspaper articles he wrote (1, 2, 3), a news portal that makes no mention of him, an interview and a list of speakers at a forum. None of these is especially significant in terms of the coverage it provides, or even acceptable for usage. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this interview by Evenimentul Zilei and the 12 other Romanian language RS listed on Google News. (Individual article quality varies from a mere mention to a couple paragraphs about Arsene. Collectively, the sources indicate that the GNG is met.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThaddeusB (talk • contribs) 23:08, April 21, 2012‎

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, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's quite likely that, in the future, Arsene's contribution will be more notable (and I'm actually a fan of his writing!), but for now the sources are virtually all primary. Dahn (talk) 12:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 00:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blink 3D

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

Non-notable, short-lived software product. News coverage consists only of press releases Pburka (talk) 13:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wasn't around long enough to become notable. Even the creator of the software product has deleted all traces of it, and says as much on the official website. That speaks volumes about notability by itself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 00:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This product clearly does not meet notability guidelines; there is no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Associative engine

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

3 sentence stub with no references on > 3 years. There are lots of google hits for this term, but many seem to be unrelated to the CAD/solid modeling software discussed in the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced article with no proof of notability. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 16:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 00:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only CAD-related hits I see are two patents that are being returned by Google Scholar (but not Google Patent Search, oddly) and this is not sufficient to demonstrate notability. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 03:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and also delete the transmigration operation redirect it contains, which was merged to a real article and is now extinct there. No prejudice to recreation of either with RS, but there's nothing to keep in either history. JJB 05:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zaask

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

Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see the reason for this article to be removed. It has references to sources from very popular media in Portugal. Kirube (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the references, a very popular news journal, has been read by over 6000 viewers and liked by around 1000. The article is in par with many other silicon valley companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.136.38.18 (talk) 06:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Relying on the Google translations, there clearly are major news articles about the subject. DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do see public workshops being conducted by Zaask with great interest from public. Being from PT, I do see a great interest in this. Moreover there are around 15 people rating the article as a trustworthy one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.76.39.177 (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would propose that you visit news.google.pt and type in Zaask. The articles that appear there are worthy enough for this to stay. Moreover, there are conventional media (hardcopy newspapers and TV) covering this as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.76.39.177 (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A notable topic regarding Internet culture that appears just from the Portuguese sources in the article to have received significant coverage. There are likely more sources available. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Parabellum (video game)

(Find video game sources: "Parabellum (video game)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Development was cancelled, the game was never released. No notability, no sources beyond standard promo hype. DoctorKubla (talk) 10:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete ascanceled game with no secondary sources besides previews and, arguably, interviews. Any content would be mostly primary and non-critical of the actual product (CGI doesn't really count as game). Here's another source [22] to add to IGN one, that might pass GNG for non-canceled game. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a cancelled video game with no real notability. The only source is a promotional article. JIP | Talk 05:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a canceled FPS and the supposed online version is vaporware. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 16:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are multiple reliable sources covering this. There are articles on Gamespot and IGN. We cover other cancelled games such as Project H.A.M.M.E.R. and Fortress (Square Enix). - hahnch e n 15:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Even with the sources noted by Hahnchen, the first is a single sentence of text, and thus hardly significant, and the 2nd is of the same publisher as the source in the text, and hence, even if the IGN deemed significant is just a single source, not meeting the multiple source guidelines in GNG. Rlendog (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon J. Key

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

Unable to find any coverage in reliable sources. The only book reference I was able to find was a repackaged Wikipedia article. ^Bongo_matic 11:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (editor contested PROD) After barely 48 hours back in article space (and almost 18 months since being PRODed), I'd say that WP:BEFORE would suggest that deletion is inappropriate because the article subject is a legitimate redirect to The Fourth Dimension. I left the notability tag on the article for a reason: to alert other editors to search for sources. Also, apologies for this typo where I removed the AfD message with an apparent copy of the edit summary (since restored by Hellknowz). I'm continuing to seek further sources. -- Trevj (talk) 06:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merging as an alternative to deletion is done "particularly if the topic name is a likely search term." This doesn't appear to be the case here. It's also used when the article has been linked to, etc. I see no rationale for this in the context of this article. ^Bongo_matic 07:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - that's your opinion. I also note at WP:BEFORE that If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article. In this instance, I think "recently restored" is a near equivalent to "recently created". -- Trevj (talk) 08:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I would expect someone (other than the creator) who requests undeletion of an inadequately sourced article would do so having already identified sources and prepared to add them without delay. In this case, the specific request for undeletion suggested that sources would be forthcoming, and the deletion discussion was initiated a full two days later than the undeletion (and only after a good faith, but unsuccessful, attempt to identify sources). ^Bongo_matic 00:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found an interview with Key from the Nov '88 issue of The Micro User and will add it when I have more time. Thanks for your patience. -- Trevj (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I expect to be able to include this within the next day or two: the magazine in question still has to be unpacked. -- Trevj (talk) 08:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep there seem to be just barely sufficient sources, for his work as a games author. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? To me there are "just barely sufficient sources" to establish V, and not even close to establishing N. What makes you think otherwise? ^Bongo_matic 03:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (editor contested PROD, as noted above), per WP:CREATIVE and with reference to the sources now included. -- Trevj (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - The coverage is just very weak. The ones available online that I could actually check, either seem unreliable, or just passing mentions. Redirect if anyone really thinks they'd use him as a search term. Sergecross73 msg me 03:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I've added the additional refs from sources not available online. Notability isn't established solely by reference to online sources. -- Trevj (talk) 03:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say otherwise. I just commented on what I could verify. If I could access hardcopies from the 90's, I would. But I can't. So all I can do is comment on what I can verify. These trends make me wonder if those other ones are trivial as well... Sergecross73 msg me 04:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for popping back here. For info, the interview cited (entitled "Key to success") is spread over 2 pages. Admittedly because it includes 3 screenshots, a half-page ad and a box-out regarding the subsequent month's coverdisk containing a demo of his Clogger game, it's not hugely in-depth. However, it should be classed as significant coverage. The other offline refs are from reviews of Key's games. The quotations demonstrate that he [...] is regarded as an important figure, per WP:CREATIVE. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawl !vote - I don't have the ability to verify the other sources, so I shouldn't really take a stance on this one. Pretend I never commented, unless someone verifies those hard-copy sources are trivial or something. Sergecross73 msg me 14:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How jolly decent of you! Thanks for generously reconsidering your position. -- Trevj (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If anyone is genuinely concerned about the printed sources, I should be able to arrange a few crappy tablet photos, if there's a quick way to upload or someone would like them by email or anything. In fact, I could possibly get away with hosting such images as attachments at an off-wiki forum. -- Trevj (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zest3D Engine

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

No evidence of notability Jac16888 ^Talk 11:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has been reported that only 7 google results are returned however, given the engine is promoted as Zest3D, it should be noted that the search returns 64,100 results.

Further evidence of notability in graphical form is unable to be added to Wikipedia by myself until the four days of membership have passed and visual representations of the engine can be added. However, visible evidence of this engine being employed to run 3D graphics on Android mobile devices can be seen at https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=air.io.plugin.mobile3d.Mobile3DTest in the form of a free downloadable application. Also, graphical representations can be found on the engines official Facebook page at and blog:

Zest3D official Facebook page (More recently updated)
Zest3D Blog

Additional features to this engine are currently in Beta and used internally within Plugin Games, however, the engine exists as an emerging technology as notable in the provided link sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plugin io (talk • contribs) 12:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can create an app page, a facebook page or a blog, and images are of no use in proving notability. What is required is the existence of multiple reliable 3rd party sources. And as for there being apparently 60,000+ google hits, most of those seem to be about a car, so that doesn't really mean anything--Jac16888 ^Talk 12:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I wholeheartedly agree with your other points, the fact still remains that a working demo of the engine is available from the Android Market. However, further evidence of the Zest3D Engine (specifically by a third party) is lacking and therefore I accept your decision and if it is to remove this article, I will ensure that a third party source verifies and reinstates this article at a later date. Thank you for your patience. Plugin io (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not passing WP:GNG -- no reliable, secondary sources with significant coverage found. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. ThereFOUR (talk) 09:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No reliable sources covering this. SL93 (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could not find a single independent, reliable source even mentioning this topic much less covering it to any depth. The corporate site; blogs; facebook; twitter: yes, but no WP:RS. This clearly does not meet the WP:GNG. WTucker (talk) 03:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage to establish notability, which even the article's creator seems to acknowledge. (And also seems to be a WP:COI. Sergecross73 msg me 16:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Ferro

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

No references other than IMDB provided which is not considered reliable. My attempts to establish notability through WP:GNG - no further sources located - and WP:NACTOR - has not been in a significant number of notable films etc - failed. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 13:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Cogman

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

His writing roles are relatively minor and do not show notability per WP:CREATIVE. West Eddy (talk) 13:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added several citations about this writer; but even without them, the notion that a critically acclaimed writer for a critically acclaimed and immensely popular (record-breaking in Blu-Ray sales) show is not notable is patently absurd. Keep this article, don't support rampant deletionism.Ashwinr (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There has been an attempt at votestacking here. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 20:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Rolling Stone article constitutes significant independent coverage in a reliable source. Pburka (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on at least one strongly reliable source and possibly others. Bearian (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus here does not appear to have accepted that the sources provided by Floydian are sufficiently independent and reliable to confer notability. Rather the most prevalent feeling is that the album should be released first. This discussion has been online for almost four weeks, and the release is scheduled to happen fairly shortly. If and when the album is released, another evaluation of the subject against WP:NALBUMS may be made. Restoration of the content may be a possible option at that point, but the article at present is fairly short, and reviews that allow a better article to be written often become available when the album is actually released. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Banks of Eden

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

Fails WP:NALBUM and also falls foul of WP:CRYSTAL. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, suggest withdrawl - It is recognized as an upcoming release by possibly the top online Prog resource, Progarchives,[23] so there is no WP:CRYSTAL issue. A quick search reveals this is the topic of several reliable sources in the Progressive Rock world.Dutch Progressive Rock Project Official Blog Power of Prog Surprisingly, this is making mainstream music news, which is nice to see for the massively underheard group.Pure Grain Audio Blabbermouth/Roadrunner Records InsideOut Music AntiMusic - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Last I checked, an album article needs far more than just independent recognition that it's going to be released to bypass WP:CRYSTAL. The fact remains that it is not yet released, so the article is indeed at issue with that policy. There's no reason not to simply create a new article once the album actually exists.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I provided six very reliable sources that provide more than just acknowledgement of a release. Many of those sources are high profile music media outlets where you would never expect to see news regarding this band. I don't see the need to delete the article solely on the basis that these exact same contents would be justifiable in about 45 days. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 05:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Quick research shows that the album will be released mid June,so why not keep the article as is and extend it (instead of adding) to make it justifiable ? Makes no sense to me to delete it now and then have to add it once more after a couple of weeks. Cdl obelix (talk) 10:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Floydian: I don't see even ONE source in the article, much less "six very reliable sources". And again, "It's going to be released" is the precise argument that WP: CRYSTAL was created to refute.

Cdl obelix: There's the matter of setting precedent. Wikipedia becomes little more than a promotional forum if editors can just create any article they want, and say "Well, there's no point in deleting it now and recreating in a couple months" (not a couple of weeks) if it gets proposed for deletion. Also, it's a double-edged argument: if you can just re-create it in a couple months, why is deleting it such a catastrophe?--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know they're not in the article, they're in my keep reasoning. See WP:BEFORE, specifically B2, C2 and D. The bare URLS I provided can be slapped on within seconds. WP:CRYSTAL was created to avoid speculation into the future, not reliably sourced or confirmed dates that things will almost certainly happen on ("Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." Emphasis mine). That's why there are articles prepared for sports tournaments upwards of months before the event takes place. As long as we're not making up figures or facts. Also see Category:Upcoming albums (which includes such gems as 50 Cent's fifth studio album). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable Sources: just to point out to Floydian that the "bare URLs" that you wish to slap into the article are *not* reliable sources.

#1 blog
#2 forum post
#3 music fan site, initially a blog, now (they say they have) 20 writers, what credentials etc. what weight, how reliable?
#4 user-generated posts
#5 own record label blurb (so not independent coverage)
#6 press release from aforementioned record label (on another obscure music website)

So only one even qualifies for consideration, and to quote WP:NALBUM "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence" (my emphasis). And 50 Cent is not the Flower Kings and Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 11:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The DPRP Blog is the official blog of Dutch Progressive Rock Project, which is one of the most significant internet resources for progressive rock music, which is far more obscure than mainstream pop or rock music and has far less mainstream sources, including PureGrainAudio. 5 and 6 are no good for establishing notability on those grounds, but are nonetheless reliable sources for the article to ascertain dates or facts. The rest I can concur that I did not recognize as being forum posts. I was not using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a keep rationale, but rather to aid in showing Martin Illa that WP:CRYSTAL couldn't apply to an album with a known/upcoming release date since we have an entire category of albums that are just that. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assume that the lack of reply into those four sources means there is nothing to discredit them as reliable sources establishing at least some notability upon the subject. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Floydian, this raises the question: If you think the sources belong in the article, why haven't you added them by now? For that matter, why hasn't anyone else? If editors aren't willing to work toward getting the article up to basic WP:NALBUM standards now, when the existence of the article is on the line, then they're certainly not going to do it after a decision to keep it has been made.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article was nominated pretty quickly after creation, and WP:BEFORE are the instructions for AfD. I haven't had the time and generally my efforts are focused elsewhere, but I suppose I could whip them up tomorrow if I have a chance. I'm sure within days of its actual release numerous new sources will become available. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 06:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources provided that show notability after two relists. SL93 (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Four reliable references are provided above. This !vote fails to address how they are not reliable nor how they do not show notability. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but my comment here is that Wikipedia is being turned into a sort of encyclopaedic MySpace, and there are overwhelming numbers of "fanboys" defending crap (imho) articles on j-pop, video games, music etc. which do not adhere to the standards of the relevant policies, and people just go "look at all the hits", "it's on a reliable blog", "there will be coverage in the future", jesus, I loved XTC and their seminal single Making Plans for Nigel, which featured a board game and charted and doesn't have an article but redirects to the album, and now WP is just full of shite crap insignificant shit that has thousands of internet posts, ok, I know I'm railing but seriously, there are longer articles on some shit R'nB song/video than on major performers' works. I just wonder where is >WP going, seen the influx of "hey it's on the net, I think it's popular, WP should have it", I sort of give up, what is the point? CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I agree wholeheartedly. I hate seeing crap on these "music" makers that publish crap on a monthly basis, but instantly chart because of who they are. I'm personally just trying to balance things out a bit by providing an article on progressive rock, which IMO is very underrepresented. Getting any publication is huge for this obscure genre. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok appreciated, honestly I have nothing against the band or their albums, I was just new page patrolling and this didn't seem to correspond to the criteria for NALBUM, the problem is that criteria are not applied systematically, there are huge articles on j-pop singles and bands which are probably longer than Led Zep. Sad (and the ultimate death of Wp as a serious source for me). Regards. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ASAP - Violates WP:CRYSTAL ("short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate"), WP:NALBUM ("An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence."), WP:ROUTINE ("routine news coverage of such things as announcements are not sufficient basis for an article") and WP:GNG ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 13:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As shown above, numerous sources that provide an edge case to WP:GNG (which supercedes WP:NALBUM, but more or less the two say the same). WP:CRYSTAL is very clearly unapplicable as the article contains far more than product announcement information here, and the release date is sourced reliably. The only source that is routine is the one that isn't independent of the source (the blabbermouth/road runner announcement). DPRP alone (including the official blog) is probably the most expansive and reliable resources for progressive rock on wikipedia, short of dead tree biographies. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is not met - the text of references 2-4 all comprise largely of an interview which is given in (primary) reference 1 - that's not substantial, non-trivial coverage. WP:CRYSTAL is clearly applicable as the article reads as a product announcement one would expect to read on a music site. I believe WP:ROUTINE applies as, once again, the sources are exactly what I would expect from music sites covering the release of a new album. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 06:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled S.P. Vinoth film project

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 14:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP isn't IMDb. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 16:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We almost never keep articles on films that do not yet even have a title. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Lack of available sources gives this a thumbs down. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Shevey

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

Having added findsources to the talk page and checked on the results, I am doubtful about this person's notability. There are news results, but most of them are by her, not about her. I don't see a case for WP:AUTHOR here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was inclined to say "weak keep" due to [24]; it may not be reliable and may be affiliated with this person, but some of the info contained hints at notability. However, it does seem too influenced by its connection with Shevey to be reliable, so Delete. dci | TALK 16:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to contribute some research that might speak to the author's notability:
Article Shevey wrote in the Boston Globe

Mention of Shevey in the New York Times

Article Shevey wrote in the Chicago Tribune

Article about Shevey in the Los Angeles Times

Mention of Shevey in Time

Mention of Shevey in a book on Joni Mitchell

Shevey interview with Ray Bradbury in Playgirl

Book Shevey wrote about Marilyn Monroe

Book Shevey wrote about women in popular music

Book Shevey wrote about John Lennon

Mention of Shevey in the New York Times encyclopedia of film

Indeed there are not that many independent mentions of her, but I think in combination with those mentions, her publications bring her notability at least into the borderline area. Ocaasi^{t | c} 16:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the LA Times article, and I can barely make out the encyclopedia mention, but the articles and the books by her are less important than the articles or books with significant coverage about her or her works.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage to qualify per WP:GNG and her work does not appear to be notable per WP:AUTHOR. West Eddy (talk) 06:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, does not pass WP:AUTHOR. I found one review of one of her books, and one article about a course she taught at USC, but otherwise no coverage ABOUT her. --MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. For lack of discussion, this deletion should be treated similar to a WP:PROD, that is, it should be restored upon (reasonable) request. Sandstein 05:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teslapunk

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

The only references for this article appear to be a single vlog and Warren Ellis's preferred distinction from Steampunk. I would suggest that the stub descriptor on the Cyberpunk_derivatives#Teslapunk page is sufficient unless this gains some notability.WP:N. Brother William (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 00:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jitendra Joshi (Marathi actor)

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

Fails WP:GNG as far as I can tell. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the person is fairly notable. The problem is I did not get time to give references. He is a very well known actor in marathi. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may add Marathi references too for proving notability. But no references at all wont help. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 10:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should the tag be removed now? Abhijeet Safai (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not, the link you added makes one fleeting mention of this actor, please see the WP:GNG for what sort of coverage is required for a person to have an article. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 11:22, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 00:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable Marathi actor.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The above opinion makes no argument. The article contains only one source, [25], that goes beyond a passing mention,and it's not clear how reliable that is. This makes the article as it currently stands fail WP:GNG. Sandstein 07:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion struck because the article has been improved, per talk page message. Currently no opinion. Sandstein 04:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What "argument" should I make? He's notable. If the article gets deleted because no one cares to research the guy, well, oh well, it happens every day. Google Translate's lack of Marathi translation ability is a problem here (not to mention that use of the marathi language online - the 15th most-spoken language is the world - is far behind many other languages).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 12:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In case needed, its written as "जितेंद्र जोशी" or "जितेन्द्र जोशी" in Marathi. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some work on it, and Animeshkulkarni, who knows Marathi is finding some better stuff (awards, etc.).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Regarding User:Sandstein's !vote above, a very important distinction is that topic notability is not based upon whether or not sources are present in articles. Topic notability is based upon the availability of reliable sources. Please read WP:NRVE, where it's stated ..."The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable." Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:ENTERTAINER as the subject "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances". Also the current state should pass WP:GNG. Will add more prose to the article. Have just worked on presenting his works till now. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable and article has got considerable sources. Thanks. - Vivvt^Talk 20:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sound Keep and close per WP:ENT, WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. With respects to the nominator's statement of "Fails WP:GNG as far as I can tell", it seems this guess was disproved by others better able to find sources. Notability has been established and sourced. With respects to Sandstein's concern toward the article then having only one source, same response... and an adviso that looking has found the subject spoken of in multiple sources... sources which do not have to be used in the article if determining notability... only that they be available for improving, which was done through regular editing. Kudos to both Animeshkulkarni and to Milowent!!! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should the tag be removed now? Abhijeet Safai (talk) 11:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These things generally run 7 days... or are relisted (as this one was twice). If there were no delete votes and the nominator had chosen to withdraw, a SNOW close would be reasonable. But worry not... someone will come along close this AFD when its time for close is due, as make note that the article has gone throgh major improvements since the last re-listing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.and thanks to Animeshkulkarni ! :) Abhijeet Safai (talk) 04:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [26] referred to this person as a prominent actor. [27] says he is one of the well-known names from the Marathi film industry. That's from the Highbeam search. Regular Google news archive search has results to go through as well. [28] The person is a prominent and well known actor clearly. Dream Focus 23:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Labchuk

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable politician who has not held office. West Eddy (talk) 20:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per pervious AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Labchuk Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That's not a particularly compelling reason to keep. The previous AfD was in 2005 and of the 4 keep !votes there's only one actual argument that would fly today: "She had a decent result in the last election, and is running again. The election aside, she is notable. She's referenced no less than 31 times at the CBC's website with many quotes!" But just saying "per previous" is not sufficient. Shadowjams (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, but you're right she has given many CBC interviews and is notable that way alone. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A google search for just the last year brought up significant results. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Results from CBC's own search on its website. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not good enough to assert that she's gotten media coverage, if that coverage doesn't actually find its way into the actual article as actual references. Keep if the article is improved by close; redirect to the party if it isn't. Bearcat (talk) 03:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - whether or not every source has been included in the article, the sources clearly exist. Labchuk is clearly a prominent Green party leader and, since the last AfD, has received additional non-routine news coverage. Sionk (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia evaluates the keepworthiness of an article by the presence or absence of sources in the article as it stands, not the presence or absence of sources in some future fantasy rewrite of the article that isn't the version that's in front of us. The sources clearly exist? Great, then add them to the article — because if they're not in the article, then they don't count for diddly. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:N - "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation." Sionk (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BLPPROD. An article about a living person can be deleted practically on sight if it doesn't have suitable sources in the article; there is no escape clause for "hey, there are sources out there so somebody might clean it up someday", if nobody's prepared to take the initiative to get that cleanup started immediately. The rules are much stricter and tighter for biographical articles about living people than they are for other unsourced or poorly sourced articles, precisely because a problematic BLP can actually have a negative impact on the life of a real human being — which is why a poor-quality article about a notable person can still be deleted or redirected if improvement isn't actually forthcoming, regardless of what other policies might say about whether articles need to be sourced or just sourceable. Bearcat (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That applies to unsourced articles about living people. This article clearly has sources. If you want to continue the discussion about improving the article, do so on its Talk page. This isn't the place. Sionk (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You're right that WP:BLPPROD probably isn't the right precedent here. But Bearcat is right that when it comes to WP:BLP that verifiability is paramount and you actually need the sources in the article in the first place to do that. That's why I'm !voting weak keep; the sources exists, someone just needs to add them. If no one takes the time to save the page then the right call probably is a delete. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 04:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The sources exists, as anyone could see by clicking the search link. This page just needs to be saved. If nobody takes up the task, maybe her notability isn't so significant. --NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 16:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Keep The article needs work but the subject is notable enough to merit a separate article. DocTree (talk) 03:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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