Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 4

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

< 3 December	5 December >

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 speedy keep. Procedural close: this should have been requested at WP:RM. Favonian (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy metal (disambiguation)

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

Heavy metal needs to be moved here. Omair00 (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied A7 by Phantomsteve ‎(A7: Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject (CSDH)). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Story So Far (Band)

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

non notable band, no references, written in promo pov style. I believe this was deleted before, recently, but am unable to find it. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found the previous delete. 16:50, March 5, 2007 NawlinWiki (talk | contribs) deleted "The story so far" ‎ (a7 nonnotable band) Gaijin42 (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under A7. I have tagged it as such. Osarius : T : C : Been CSD'd? 23:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus here is that references exist, enough to qualify more than routine coverage, but they need to be added to the article. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 00:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmopolitan Twarda 2/4

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

non notable building, not yet complete Gaijin42 (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When completed, it will be 9th tallest building in Poland measuring height to the highest point of building, 5th measuring height to the roof, and 3rd highest residential building in Poland (2nd in Warsaw). Piotrek91 (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of which is mentioned in the article, and none of which is backed up by references. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Height of 160m is backed up by references. I don't think it's good idea to list all positions in various rankings in article, for such purpose we have List of tallest buildings in Poland. I've mentioned them to prove that it is not some random building. Piotrek91 (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still think this would fail GNG, even though such facts are interesting. Notability is established by having someone in WP:RS talk about it Gaijin42 (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's hard to find such info in english resources, in polish it won't be a problem. ctbuh.org, emporis.com, Warsaw Business Jorunal, Warsaw Business Journal. And in polish it' really more, for example: warszawa.gazeta.pl, tvnwarszawa.pl - two biggest info news sites for Warsaw, belonging to biggest polish media companies Agora SA and TVN. Piotrek91 (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional keep. I think skyscrapers, planned or not, are notable, and Piotrek shows there are sources. But please, add those sources, preferably as inline references, to the article itself. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 05:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I promise I'll improve this article, but it may take some time as I' quite busy at least till Wednesday Piotrek91 (talk) 07:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article clearly needs a bit of work, but it's a major construction project mentioned in enough sources to make it notable.--Kotniski (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article was nominated for deletion a remarkable eight minutes after it was created. I recommend the nominator read WP:DEMOLISH. In the meantime, the article has been expanded and sourced and I think the tower's notability has been established. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see nothing but strictly routine coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The coverage of this topic is in-depth (also found this) and does appear to pass our guidelines. Major construction project. WP:ROUTINE, which is actually part of WP:EVENT of which this topic is not one, refers to "sporting events" and "announcements." The coverage demonstrated here aren't anything like that. --Oakshade (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There's enough input here to determine that consensus hasn't changed from the previous AFD. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sreelakshmi Suresh

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

Obviously an ambitious self promotion. The specific points which reveal that it was an attempt on self promotion are below:

User:Gk00900, the author of this article has made no other contribution other than authoring this article! See Contributions of Gk00900. The only other page edited is List of people from Kerala to insert this very article in the list!!! It makes me doubt that User:Gk00900 is 'Sreelakshmi Suresh'. No no, not an accusation. Can you blame me if I doubt that?
The only award which is established by the sources is that of the 'Association of American Webmasters' and apparently it is an award dispensing organization, with no established credibility. The the 2nd AfD discussion has some data on it. All the other awards are just claims, and the only credible newpaper that reports it is 'The Hindu'. Here again 'The Hindu' reports it only as a claim and not as a fact.

'Sreelakshmi has won the Global Internet Directories Gold Award (U.S.A.), Association of American Webmasters Merit Award, Association of American Webmasters Official membership and Art Space's World Web Award of Excellence 2006-07 (USA), said her father.' (From Ref 2 in the article).

This article was previously nominated for deletion. Both the AfDs ended in a 'Keep' decesion. The main argument that supported the 'keep' was that we sould clean it up, instead of removing it. And some effort of the community was put in to make it look better. But why should we clean it and retain it, if the intention of self promotion is obvious?

And finally, I dont care if someone promote themselves through their personal web sites. But is Wikipedia the place for this? Austria156 (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per everything said in the August 2011 AfD... Seriously, its only been 4 months. Mkdw ^talk 08:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

discussion for consensus do NOT VOTE COUNT...so do you have a specific reason to "keep"?Lihaas (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I quote a few lines up: "per everything said in the August 2011 AfD". Would you like me to copy and paste the entire discussion that is barely dry off the page from only a few months ago, or are you able to click the link I provided? Never said anything about a vote count so why don't you not put words in people's mouths and stick to the AfD process. Mkdw ^talk 00:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The availability of reliable sources qualifies this topic for inclusion. Also, it is quite unlikely that this thirteen-year old girl in India created this article to promote herself, per assertions in the nomination for deletion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thi s is quite clearly oconjecture when you say "quite unlikely " care to clarify as discussion for consensus are based on the merit of the conversation. at least one RS is utter rubbish and not RS.Lihaas (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But it is not unlikely that this 13 year old girl has created award-winning websites and is managing a webdesign venture all by herself!!! I did not mean to say that she did it all (either this article or her web sites) by herself. I meant only that User:Gk00900 is a promoter of this person. It is obvious and unrefutable (User:Gk00900 has made no other edits in all these years, since 2007. Could you explain that with a simpler theory than this). So this user might be one of her parents, or a relative.

We go by what reliable sources say, not your opinion about what is or isn't likely. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By whatever sources, is it likely that User:Gk00900 is only a promoter of the 'subject'? And is not this a significant problem as per established Wikipedia policy? Austria156 (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a reason for article deletion, especially when based on guesswork. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem. But if we, sincere wikipedians, including you, me, and all of us here, bring up the laws here, read them in letters, instead of in the spirit, and support this kind of obvious and blatant self promotion; where would this lead Wikipedia to? A Gk00900, who have made just this one contribution to Wikipedia with selfish intentions has left and we are now working hard to make it look better and arguing hard whether or not to delete it. I could just have overlooked this article. Why did I stop on it and gave it a third AfD where the first two had failed. Because I wanted Wikipedia to be clean of self promotional stuff. If not for this AfD, this article will remain here unnoticed for years or until the life of Wikipedia itself. And I have no problem about it. And know this. I am an Indian. From the very state of this 'subject'. I have never heard such a name before. This person is not notable even in city of Calicut where she resides. And here we are arguing whether she is notable or not. Thank you. I quit the discussion. Sorry for being emotional. Any sincere person will yield for emotions when let down mercilessly. Thank you all. I am unhappy, but I have no hard feeling towards any of you. Good luck. Austria156 (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete obvious promotion for a non-notable subject. should we have pages for EVERY award winner for EVERY award? children do get awards too...and the sources (many of them) are dubious too, wordpress for example. Furthermore, not hard to see a web designer can maintain this page, esp. since its the sole editLihaas (talk) 08:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The last AFD was at 3 August 2011. Consensus was clear. Nothing has changed since then, so this is a waste of everyone's time. The Hindu is a major newspaper. If coverage was found last time, then I don't see what the problem is. Also, look at all of those awards. The ones given by the India government and by notable organizations surely indicate notability of this person. Click the Google news archive link. Plenty of sources. asiaone is a reliable source and the first thing that appears, giving full coverage to this person. [1] Dream Focus 16:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied A7 by Phantomsteve (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject (CSDH)). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Josh M. Parker III

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

I cannot find evidence for this living person. The article is unreferenced and blp prod tags have been removed by the author. The article on his father was deleted as a blatant hoax. Chris857 (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO if refs cannot be found. Edison (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. The same editor already this added this name as provably phony information to another article. (It claimed that Josh M. Parker III was the spouse of Janice Rogers Brown; she actually married Allen Brown, who died of cancer, then musician Dewey Parker in 1991.) --Closeapple (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User just created Earlene Jones Parker also. --Closeapple (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User just re-created Josh M. Parker Jr. also. --Closeapple (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Hoax alarm is buzzing. Carrite (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted per CSD A10. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A good website design and development tips

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

Fails WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a How To. Osarius : T : C : Been CSD'd? 20:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obvious original research as demonstrated by the lack of sources Sparthorse (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under A10 as a redundancy of Web design and I have tagged it as such. Safiel (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. --Closeapple (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last of us

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

Unsourced article that is entirely speculative -- Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no substance to article. Crystal-ball-gazing. Possibly bring back when evidence becomes available. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-information suitable for a blog, not an encyclopedia. LadyofShalott 22:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The game is currently in development and Content will be added to the page as soon as it is available, i am still adding more detail to it as we speak. This game has now been announced and the wiki page should be created for it. -Fluffyman24- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffyman24 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:CRYSTAL. Recreate once more solid facts are known. (No reason to keep until then - the entire article would virtually need to be redone anyways...) Sergecross73 msg me 16:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. The reason giving for keeping is "Content will be added to the page as soon as it is available", but we don't have articles on the basis of speculation that suitable information will become available some time in the future: we need evidence of notability now, and we haven't got it. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in reply to JamesBWatson, there is more information coming out on the 10/12/2011 there will be more information at that point.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.93.140.174 (talk)

The main problem with that is that for an article to be meet the notability guideline the subject needs to be covered by independent sources which are also reliable. The company releasing the game offering more content about the game would not meet that standard since it is not independent of the subject. Unless other sources cover this the article will not meet the guideline. --199.91.207.3 (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The game has now been announced to be developed by Naughty Dog so another possibility may be to redirect the game to the developer until there is enough information to split the article.--70.24.215.154 (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Global Shop Solutions

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

Non-notable business software corp, unimproved since tagged in 2008 Kilopi (talk) 19:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another Enterprise Resource Planning software (ERP) company advertising on Wikipedia. 'References' are to routine coverage of startup financing and to a company profile. "Global", shopping, and "solutions" in the business name --- how many more indicia of non-notability can you get? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: lack of action to improve this article shows only that the principals of WP:BEFORE have not been thoroughly followed and the name of the company as an indicator of non-notability is a new one on me. (You could make the same point about "International", "Business", and "Machines" but it wouldn't change that company's notability.) Coverage is thin but notability is not a competition. - Dravecky (talk) 09:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Smerdis of Tlön. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The coverage is too thin to meet WP:CORP. Of the two Houston Chronicle refs listed in the article, I was able to find the online copy for one; Exports are rare bright spot for falling dollar, which is a passing mention. The title of the other article implies coverage about raising capital which is routine business coverage. I can find lots of press releases and they are mentioned in articles like this. What I cannot find is significant coverage about the company that would be sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all of the above. Katarighe (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Egerson

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

fails WP:NBASKETBALL Mayumashu (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The New York Times ran an article about him [2] and AOLNews.com did as well [3]. When the NYT writes about you, you're doing something right (or, incidentally in this case, something wrong). Jrcla2 (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep – per coverage in reliable sources:

Thamel, Pete (March 30, 2007). "Georgetown Player's Ignominious Mark". The New York Times. Retrieved December 5, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"John Thompson's Shameful Recruitment of Marc Egerson". AOL News. March 31, 2007. Retrieved December 5, 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has coverage. Dream Focus 19:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor King

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

fails WP:NBASKETBALL Mayumashu (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep At one point, he was considered one of the best players in his high school class [4]. He even committed to UCLA as an eighth grader [5]. It seems like he hasn't really lived up to expectations, but an article on him has some merit, for those wondering "Where is he now?" There seems to be plenty of information available on him, from both national and local sources: [6], [7], [8], etc. Zagalejo^^^ 03:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zagalejo. Never achieved stardom like people thought he would but he has enough coverage as an individual to warrant an article. Jrcla2 (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DeAndre Thomas

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

for failing WP:NBASKETBALL Mayumashu (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All coverage I found was routine and the leagues he has played in so far do not bestow automatic notability. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advent Bangun

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

unreferenced, notability not established, very short article, no external links Breawycker (talk to me!) 19:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I already tagged it for speedy deletion before you nominated this JDOG555 (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a claim of notability on the talk-page (posted to dispute the speedy tag). It's a reasonable claim (though uncited), so I declined the speedy (tagged for lack of asserted notability). However, it's uncited, so we're at best in WP:BLPPROD land (I tagged as such). I also found his entry in the Indonesian wikipedia and added an interwiki link. That article is unreferenced (lists lots of films but they only appear "to exist" and some of those articles have IMDB and other sources that he is in them) but no independent in-depth review of this person as a notable star or a major force in major productions (rather than just existing and perhaps often-appearing in films of uncertain en.wp notability).~~I have to !vote delete for now because I don't have any references handy, but would certainly change that if W:RS for personal notability are provided.~~DMacks (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes GNG and WP:ACTOR. There are 24 GNews hits ([9] and 239 GBooks Hits [10] about him. Despite of the difficult translation, many sources seem to confirm the claim that he was an Indonesian major movie star in the 80's. For example this article on Kapan Lagi says that him and Barry Prima struggled to be the most popular actors in 80's/beginning of 90's ("mantan aktor laga seangkatan Barry Prima dan Advent Bangun di era 80-an sampai 90-an"). this one basically says the same ("Pada era '80-an hingga '90-an film-film yang dibintangi Barry Prima maupun Advent Bangun sangat mudah ditemukan"). One article in Galamedia clearly says that he "starred in several blockbusters" (" membintangi sejumlah film laris"), this article's opening sentence is: "After the glory days of Barry Prima and Advent Bangun in the 80s era" ("Setelah masa-masa kejayaan Barry Prima dan Advent Bangun di era 80-an"), one other article opening sentence says: "Perfilman Indonesia sempat diramaikan dengan aktor-aktor laga seperti Barry Prima, Advent Bangun, George Rudy dll.", ie "Indonesian cinemas were crowded with action actors such Barry Prima, Advent Bangun, George Rudy, etc.."... --Cavarrone (talk) 06:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sourcing found by Cavarrone (thanks!) is sufficient to show that the person was a major star of Indonesian cinema of the 80's. Given the time period, and language barrier, good sources are likely to be offline and require somebody proficient in Indonesian to improve the article -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my !vote to keep now that there are some independent and reliable sources that support personal notability. Please incorporate into article. DMacks (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep

Occupy Homes

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

neologism. term not widely used. Content should be part of one of the larger "occupy" articles. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Occupy movement. Can be spun off to separate artcle if events warrant. Seems premature now. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC) changing to Keep. Since this article was nominated, the topic has been the subject of multiple significant news coverage, including articles in the Associated Press and Mother Jones. However, note that the MJ story refers to the movement as Occupy Our Homes. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Occupy Movement, as per above. One of the sources cited does not even mention 'Occupy Homes'! Sionk (talk) 10:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although it appears to share the Occupy brand, it clearly has a different social origin and is using different methods to highlight a different, if related social issue than the Occupy <named place> groups. As to sources, news organisations are posting them frequently, several hundred at last count. Daffodillman (talk) 01:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the movement exists. The question is - is it in fact a distinct movement. As far as I can see, none of the RS indicate so or indicate the notability of the hypothetical separate movement. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - since this AfD began this group has received a very large level of coverage in third-party sources, more than satisfying GNG. The article is capable of considerable expansion, and the main Occupy movement article is already very long and not a suitable place for a merge.([11]).Rangoon11 (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - What is the rush to judgement? This is a recent event, the article has existed for barely 4 days. You cannot possibly be saying it is a dead issue. I see 18 sources and can add more. It was the tease material for my local newscast last night. Drama will continue to build following that kind of exposure. Even if it dies now, it has had its run at the top of the news cycle and was a notable piece of history on its own merits in that period of time. Trackinfo (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nomination withdrawn - I posit that it was WP:TOOSOON at the time of article creation, but in this case WP:CRYSTALBALL was accurate, and the notability is now there. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think your nom was definitely correct at the time, but the article is now amply sourced. You may be able to do a non-admin close since it was your nom. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; yes, it's part of the Occupy movement, but the size of those articles makes this a legitimate content fork. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Ribeiro

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

Non-notable, outside of one insignificant event. DavyCrockettJones (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having insufficient coverage in independent third-party sources. If such sources are integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. He campaign he started may be notable though. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Kennedy

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

Individual is apparently a politician, but has not occupied any international, national, or statewide office; nor is he a major local political figure receiving significant press coverage.
Further, individual has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." Most of the sources cited are on websites controlled by that individual.
Notably, none of these websites/nonprofits themselves appear to have Wikipedia pages. An ideal solution would be to merge this page into those. Perhaps it should be merged into Texas College Republicans.

"Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person."

Given the lack of notability and the authorship largely by a single individual, this article may be autobiographical: WP:AUTO.GimliDotNet (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BIO, I believe this article meets the criteria for notability.

Other articles reference similar individuals as "politicians;" see Henrik_Asheim or Eskil Pedersen, etc. Webster's Dictionary defines a politician as: ": a person experienced in the art or science of government; especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government 2 a : a person engaged in party politics as a profession
Most, if not all, of the sources are from independent sources. How did you verify control of websites by subject?
Create one. They meet notability requirements.
He seems to be the primary subject of the articles, or deal with him directly in them. This means the subject is notable, not just associated with notable subjects.
Most of the articles are from independent, third-party sources, that is the requirement for NPOV status.

Theseus1776 (talk) 18:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Theseus. Per the guidelines this article seems to meet the criteria for WP to me too. --Kumioko (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I think the AICB section alone makes him a notable person. The large scale operations of his charity work seem perfectly notable to me. I'm not sure that his political activism work makes he notable, but that's besides the point because he is notable for other things IJA (talk) 18:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - none of the third party links mention Lance, only the charities own links. Notability isn't achieved by doing something large.. but by being written about in 3rd party sources. GimliDotNet (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I haven't had time to look into all of the citations listed in the article. But the first 10 or so I looked at didn't have any mention at all of Lance Kennedy. They were about various organizations, etc., and not about him. To make this conversation a bit easier for evaluation, could someone who believes this is a Keep please point to some independent reliable third party sources that give significant coverage to Lance Kennedy directly? With those he may pass WP:GNG, but based on the little sample I have looked at so far I don't see it. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It appears that some of the keep !votes on this Afd appeared after canvassing. I have explained the issue with that directly to the editor here [12], but thought it would be important in evaluating this AfD to be aware of any potential biases created by such canvassing. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- there are a few valid references but most of the others are junk (websites, Wordpress etc) so the article, if it stays, should be trimmed substantially.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC) I am changing my vote to delete since it does not appear to be much progress here in trimming this article down, and using only valid references. If the article is improved (shortened) I may switch my vote back but it is the responsibility of the article's creators to observe Wikipedia's rules and follow them, and not my task to rewrite this article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I say delete it. Theseus1776 is just Lance himself, and it's obvious (even more so when you look at his "ancestor's" page, John J. Kennedy. 90% of the edits there are done by Theseus1776). I don't think a page should be created and maintained by the person it's referencing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.246.191.208 (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've removed some of the extraneous stuff that wasn't about the subject and was instead about organizations. There is still more trimming needed likely if the article is kept. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My sense is the article (if it stays) should only be a paragraph at most -- or whatever is supported by good references. It will make the article tighter, more effective; right now, I simply do not believe much of the content in it since the references are mostly invalid.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references don't even state his name and most of them are just silly blogs, not reliable third party sources. IJA (talk) 13:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many of the original article's sources did not make specific mention of Lance Kennedy. Some of those were trimmed. The article was also trimmed to remove extraneous information about organizations that was not about Lance Kennedy in an attempt to move the article closer to something that could be reliably sourced. Unfortunately when at that state it appears that there are not sufficient significant independent reliable sources to establish notability for the subject. Since that trimming some of the deleted extraneous content has been readded by the original article author once again making the largest part of the article not directly about Lance Kennedy. It appears there simply is not enough independent reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG, and as such the article should be deleted. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough coverage in reliable sources to support a standalone BLP. The content is either unreliable or based on school newspaper sources, and does not legitimately establish notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having insufficient coverage in independent third-party sources. If such sources are integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete. The issue on whether or not this should be redirected for the time being can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Lost (2012 film)

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

Film has not entered production (and is not scheduled to until the spring) and has not had significant coverage. I suggest to incubate, but it cannot have a stand-alone article yet per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 18:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Paradise Lost#Films until the film starts production, per WP:NFF. The work that has been done on this article already can be preserved in the edit history until the film qualifies for a separate article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It starts filming next month and has a cast list which includes a few A-List actors and a renowned director and distribution company attached to the project...--Stemoc (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First, i would have liked to have been informed this was being considered for deletion. Secondly, per Stemoc, the film is due to begin filming next month (could you link me a source for that so i can add it?). RAP (talk) 0:54 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- mentioned here, to be shot in sydney...--Stemoc (talk) 08:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey RAP, you were notified. BOVINEBOY2008 00:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Very peculiar, i never eceived the orange box stating i did. At least i was, though. RAP (talk) 1:46 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Keep per Stemoc. Nothing is gained in preventing this article from doing anything but develop normally at this point. postdlf (talk) 02:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paradise Lost#Films. As film has not entered into production, anything can happen per WP:NFF, and not notable at this stage. Very little information on the film except for casting, but as Metropolitan90 points out, this will be preserved anyway. Should not be considered one of those rare exceptions to WP:NFF as coverage fairly insignificant. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Stemoc. It's not like this is some obscure low-budget indie film; they're even talking about it being made in 3D. Coverage of this film will likely begin to snowball once filming starts. SweetNightmares (awaken) 17:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've hit the nail on the head there: "once filming starts". Until then, this isn't notable. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This film isn't just in pre-production, if you read the news articles, it says that the actors in this movie are already rehearsing their lines and scenes. It would be idiotic to delete this article now and then recreate it again 24 days later....Watch the video on this news article today from the Huffington Post. The lead actor, Bradley Cooper talks about the movie as well as showing a picture of his costume for the movie. --Stemoc (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should redirect it. Nothing will be lost, and once there is more coverage and filming starts, the redirect can be reverted. In the meantime, any additional information can be added at redirect location. Easy! P.S. - rehearsing lines is not part of the production process, it is still in the pre-production stages. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does he confirm that filming has commenced? This is still just a news article - see my comment below. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aah..Wikipedians, making even the simplest of things harder....I do not get your logic, this movie will not go into filming in 2 or 3 months or more but in less than a month. The article alone has had over 4700 views this month. This is not a crystalball. This movie is a definite GO. This film is not just a "rumour " or in developments stages such as scripting and neither is it in development hell. The filming dates have been defined and its January 2012, It will be released in 2013 and the core of the main cast has been confirmed...Redirecting this article serves no purpose--Stemoc (talk) 12:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No purpose, unless you read the established guidelines regarding notability, which this article fails. You seem to be very definite in the fact that this film will be made. No-one can know the future. At the moment there is no film to write an article on, just the plan of a film. What's your obection to following guidelines and developing this "on an article about the subject matter" until it becomes notable? Do you have any extenuating circumstances why we shouldn't follow guidelines? If we don't follow guidelines, we end up with articles like Used Guys knocking around. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the Used Guys was that it never into pre-production. It was scrapped due to high costs by the production company. Though the chance of a less expensive version may see it get made in the near future. The guidelines are not perfect on this wiki. It Assumes that every film in pre-production will NOT get made. It doesn't account for Bigger budgeted movies. Maybe the people who set up the guidelines were not familiar with how this work. Maybe we should also delete the article on the 2016 Summer Olympics article as well because, per the guidelines, it has not happen and will not happen for another 5 years...Why are the guidelines biased towards films only? This movie is also in pre-production and yet no one has challenged its inclusion. Maybe you should go through this category and start tagging every movie there for deletion because we don't know how many of those movies are in development mode, script mode, or even in pre-production.....Just because the people who wrote the guidelines didn't account for this doesn't mean you have to blindly follow that guideline--Stemoc (talk) 23:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the guidelines are often discussed by the members of WP:WikiProject Film so would suggest that the guidelines are monitored by people who are "familiar with how this work". They do not assume that any film in pre-production will not get made, but states that a film is not notable until it gets made (because it doesn't exist), and then when it is in production, only notable if the production itself is notable. Have a look at WP:ATA#CRYSTAL. Pre-production stages have clearly been taken into account when writing the guidelines, becuase they say that articles for films that have not started principal photography should not be created. Of course, there are common sense exceptions to the guidelines, but this is clearly not one of them, as there is very little on this article except for parrotting casting and minor production decisions. As I've already asked - do you have any extenuating circumstances why we shouldn't follow guidelines? What's your obection to following guidelines and developing this "on an article about the subject matter" until it becomes notable? And I agree - the Burt Wonderstone article is also premature (and there probably some others too). The existence of one article does not justify the inclusion of another. Oh - and WP:CRYSTAL deals with your question regarding the Olympics. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really think you're making this a bigger deal than it needs to be. What would be the point of moving it now, only to move it back in a month or so? Is "because it's policy" the only argument? If that's the case, I'd like to point out that Wikipedia's purpose is to provide copyright-free information that is free and open to the public. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. It is for petty things such as this that WP:IGNORE exists. SweetNightmares (awaken) 00:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He truly believes that WP:NFF is policy and it is his only argument. As i have tried to explain to him (to no success), the real premature articles are forcasting films announced. I feel an article becomes notable when they announce casting AND filming dates. RAP (talk) 1:46 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I have asked you before Rusted Auto Parts to stop trying to make things personal. Please read WP:Avoid personal attacks. Once more and I will be taking this further. As you can see from my arguments above and below, I have more than explained my reasoning for considering this article to be non-notable in more than just terms of WP:NFF. You may feel that a film becomes notable once a filming date is announced, but this is NOT what the guidelines say. Even if filming had started, there is not "significant coverage" to make this article notable - see below. You are entitled to your opinion, why are you so against me having one? --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What personal attack? I was only saying that you were enforcing a guideline as policy. Not making it personal at all. And a film can only receive significant coverage only when it's filming? Boloney! As stated perviously, a film can receive coverage before filming. That part in WP:NFF should really be re-written as "Any film that has only been announced or hasn't entered any stage of production should NOT receive an article." I.E., If any film isn't in pre-production bordering filming, than yes, redirect it. Please calm down, Rob, and read WP:LEMONADE (i should probably too). RAP (talk) 12:44 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, discussion should be about the subject matter, not the editor. You jumped into the discussion here with "He truly believes that WP:NFF is policy and it is his only argument" - this is an attack on the editor, not the content. It is also untrue. Any changes to WP:NFF should be discussed at the relevant talk page to see if you can find consensus. And I'm not saying that any film can't receive significant coverage, I just feel that this one hasn't yet. Please note though that significant coverage is not just saying "John Doe has been cast" - this is just a repeat of news - it needs to have been discussed objectively and had some critical anaylysis - see my comment below regarding that. And generally, until a film receives this, it is not notable. Also, a film does not automatically become notable the minute the cameras start rolling either. It still needs the same significant coverage. Arguments for keeping the article need to demonstrate that significant coverage is existent, not argue that "this film is notable because it is going to get made" or "look - there are loads of sources saying John Doe will be in it". These are not valid arguments. Also, an argument for why an article should be excepted from the guidelines is more useful than "I don't like the guideline". Please also note that I am not the only editor with these opinions regarding this article, and it wasn't my nomination in the first place. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As well as WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFF, I would like to direct editors commenting here to read WP:GNG which states "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just routine news reports about a single event or topic to constitute significant coverage. For example, routine news coverage such as press releases, public announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not significant coverage. Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage." As all we have here is a list of cast and crew, this is just a news item; we have no critical analysis here. I'd invite you to reconsider your stance. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Per the GNG and NFF, there is no significant coverage for this potential film. I wouldn't delete the page, but the title should have been a redirect from the getgo. Redirect it to either Alex Proyas' page, or to the Paradise Lost page. It completely fails the notability guideline regardless, and could not be considered one of the "exceptions" considering the lack of coverage it has. The sources also contradict the page. This one announcing Cooper's involvement says it's planned for a 2013 release. This says that it will be a "LATE" 2013. Another 2013, and again in 2013. So, this film isn't even close to coming out. It's go almost 2 years before it's planned release in late 2013. With the limited coverage, and the fact that the sources even say that production won't start until 2012, it should not be a page right now. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So far, it looks as if there are a growing number of references and information on cast and crew. Many notable names here. This looks like a big production. If the James Bond films can be listed before they even have titles, why not this one? Let it grow naturally, it will unfold quickly.--Fightingirish (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs about bicycles

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

There is nothing relevant about a song being about a bicycle. It is non-defining. There is precedent set by deleted "List of songs about" that include: animals, bad girls, basketball, being on fire, blackbirds, body parts, cheerleading, defecation, depression, disability, disasters, drugs, eating disorders, the environment , famous people, fantasy thoughts, fetal expulsion, fictitious bands, firearms, flatulence, friendship, groupies, hair, holidays, homosexuality, laziness, masturbation, mental illness, money, mothers, nudity, old people, places, politicians, romance, the seasons, sex, sleep, suicide, teenage fun, telephones, tequila, unrequited love, violence, war, and the weather omnibus deletion . Additionally WP:LISTN says "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" And just to imagine people creating lists of songs by moon, the stars and whatever next comes up in an editors mind fails WP:MADEUP and WP:WHIM and if left unchecked will lead to a flood of pointless and useless lists that will only please the creators. Or, in the British vernacular, on your bikes with these lists! Richhoncho (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mind you, I'm really sorry to be chopping something so obviously, delightfully silly. Maybe we could put it into a WP Essay on joyful silliness, or something. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that it's silly is an argument to avoid — WP:RUBBISH/WP:ITSFUNNY/WP:ITBOTHERSME. Warden (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination seems to be a cookie-cutter nomination and none of the points made is valid. The first sentence is just noise — what is relevant supposed to mean here? The basis of the article is certainly defining — what could be plainer? Note that we already have a list of films about bicycles and cycling created by another editor which demonstrates the concept being used in a similar way. The precedents listed are non-binding because we have an equally long list of other song classifications which have survived AFD — see Lists of music by theme, Lists of songs about a city, &c. As for WP:LISTN, this satisfied by the source supplied: The Voices That Are Gone: Themes in Nineteenth-Century American Popular Song.

As for the claims that this is pointless, useless &c., these are not policy-based arguments nor based upon independent evidence, just bilious and vexatious complaints of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:CENSOR. Our editing policy tells us to preserve and improve such content, not to delete it. There are sources which categorise songs in this way such as Jeff Green (2002), The Green book of songs by subject: the thematic guide to popular music, Professional Desk References, ISBN 9780939735105. These demonstrate the validity of such categorisation by professionals in the music business, just as biologists categorise species and chemists categorise chemicals.

Finally, note that the nominator has himself worked upon other similar classifications such as Songs about trains, Songs about buses, Songs about trucks, Songs about aircraft. The nominator seems to be suggesting that bicycles are not a proper form of transport or some similar prejudice contrary to core policy.

Warden (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No, what is vexatious is the creation of this list after it becomes almost certain that a similiar list will be deleted at List of songs about rainbows and the creator being fully aware of the numerous precedents that these lists are generally deleted. You are also being disengenious, I did not work on those other songs by transport lists, I merely added a project tag, that does not preclude them being nominated for deletion by me or another editor. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another recent example of the nominator working upon List of train songs. This seems to be a case of WP:POINT or WP:HARASS contrary to WP:HONEST. Warden (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hands up, my error, I forgot I hotcatted List of Train songs and a few other list articles into the correct category scheme, hardly "working on" or contrary to WP:HONEST and certainly not to be confused with support, anymore than the fact I project tagged this article AND nominated it for deletion. --Richhoncho (talk) 04:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some list articles like this were deleted, others were kept, and many others haven't been challenged. Doesn't matter at all since its a case by case issue. This list article contains a lot of songs notable enough to have their own article. The list offers far more information than . And it has references too. Dream Focus 02:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nom insists that "There is nothing relevant about a song being about a bicycle. It is non-defining." So...what a song is about is not relevant, nor is it defining of that song? That's not a very convincing claim, particularly when you look at this list (which no doubt should be, and could be, developed further) and see that many of the songs were about the novelty or trendiness of bicycles at the turn of the previous century and so represent an interesting snapshot in time. It shouldn't take much to see that such cultural representations are a significant part of history, but many Wikipedia editors seem to have a blind spot when it comes to the value of this kind of information, if not an outright antipathy to "low culture". The nom seems quite frightened that unless we delete all lists of songs by subject, that others will create and work on lists that he does not like. I can't say that's a compelling concern either. Not all such lists are worthwhile; certainly we shouldn't try to index songs based on something they merely mention (a "list of songs that mention bicycles" would get no support from me), or overly broad subjects that end up being completely uninformative. But if the options are tolerating some silly ones or wiping out all indexes of songs by subject indiscriminately, I'll go with the former. Note also that we have Category:Songs about bicycles as part of a Category:Songs by theme structure. Lists complement that and can flesh that structure out with annotations, organizations alternative to alphabetical, and entries that though verifiable do not merit their own articles. postdlf (talk) 05:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting list that may be useful for those wanting to promote enviromentally friendly forms of transport. Also per Postdlf, though wouldnt say its just low culture, even Royals such as good Kate and William like to use Boris Bikes. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I was using that label in reference to songs, not biking. postdlf (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With very few exceptions, I find lists in this category problematic. One problem, significant here, is the original research inherent in them. Postdlf, above, agrees that a "list of songs that mention bicycles" would be problematic; how does this differ from such a hypothetical list? "Handlebars" and "Nine Million Bicycles" certainly do little more than that. The bicycles are incidental or metaphorical mentions and by no means the subject of the song; more importantly, we have no sources that identify bicycles as the subject of those songs. Even for this list, where we have a source that talks rather unexpectedly at length about the appearance of bicycles in late 19th century song (and does at one point call them "bicycle songs"), the referenced material hardly makes the case that these songs are about bicycles. Rather, they are "songs about courting" and changes to the courting scene enabled by an "escape [from] the family parlor." I have no question that material adapted from that source belongs in article-space, discussing the historical culture impact of bicycles (EDIT: Indeed, this would make for an excellent expansion to Bicycle#Female emancipation). But I don't think that conveys evidence that this list contemplates a cross-categorization with its own notability ... or that there is any objective means of determining inclusion. And as I've mentioned elsewhere, I particularly discount The Green Book, which has "almost 1800 logical categories" of songs, without substantive commentary about the groupings. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I don't put any stock in the Green Book either. If you are correct in your analysis (the only substantive !delete comments so far in this AFD, btw), then yes I'd agree that if there are no songs actually about bicycles/cycling then the list is not useful, in the same way that "Bridge Over Troubled Waters" is not really a song "about" bridges. No doubt there may be some entries that shouldn't be included. But a reference calling a group of songs "bicycle songs," even if the songs are "really" about courting (in the same way that M*A*S*H is really about Vietnam?) goes a long way towards establishing the theme or subject as defining of those songs. It sounds like you're questioning why the song talks about bicycles, and if the bicycles aren't an end in themselves then you think they don't qualify, which is squeezing too hard in my view. At any rate, I'd like to see some more work developing sources and comments on these songs before it is given up on, particularly given the complete lack of talk page activity for this list at present which makes me think this AFD is premature at best. postdlf (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's not a trace of OR here because every one of these songs was obtained from another source, rather than my own thinking, and there is generally a lot of commonality in the sources. It's Squeamish Ossifrage's thesis which seems to be OR - an attempt to construct an alternate theme for these songs which is unsupported by the sources. As for the Green book, this is a professional work and so trumps anything which we amateurs might opine. This is the essence of the issue with OR - that we don't present our own ideas but present those of independent professionals. You don't get to pick and choose. Warden (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a long distance cyclist, I find this list inspiring, and useful. It's nice to ride to bicycle songs. Sure, some of the songs' subject are not exclusively about cycling. Maybe there is a discussions to have about what songs are on the list. But the list itself merits inclusion. It reveals, joyfully, an important perspective on bicycle culture. Anothersixpence (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:LISTN, each item has an article, referenced. The Steve 12:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having insufficient coverage in independent third-party sources. If such sources are integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Alternatively, convert to a category. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a category — songs about bicycles — and this article is already in it. This indicates that you have not examined either the article nor the categories with care. See WP:CLN which explains that we do not delete lists in order to create categories. Warden (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish pilgrim bus attack

The article Turkish pilgrim bus attack has been nominated for speedy deletion by User:ChronicalUsual, reasoning it that the article is not a notable event to have its own page per WP:NOTNEWS.

Keep - the event is rather a diplomatic event - an attack of Assad's supporters on Turkish citizens on Syrian soil, which might has contributed to deterioration of Turkish-Syrian relations. For now it seems to be notable enough.Greyshark09 (talk) 06:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 4. Snotbot t • c » 16:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The attack was in response to Erogdens remarks against Asad, therefore forming part of the Syrian conflict. Chesdovi (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It should probably be hacked about and expanded a bit, but it should remain here. 81.98.167.142 (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it should remain.--Tacci2023 (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G5 (education)

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

dont feel this a serious grouping, is referenced extremely poorly, doesn't even highlightidea of reseach funding, and offers extremely little. Relies simply on a newspaper article back in 2004, we no evidence this grouping exists today, which remember was nothing to do with pure reputation, was about raising research funding at the time Edinburghgeog (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC) Note: The proposer is an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet of the also indefinitely blocked Edinburghgeo, and also has a likely conflict of interest due to a close connection with the University of Edinburgh and a perception on their part - in my view wholly unfounded, but they appear to see things rather differently - that the G5 grouping and the presence of an article about it in WP is somehow against the interests of the University of Edinburgh.Rangoon11 (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - more than meets GNG as a result of third-party sourcing. The article could do with a bit of expansion but that is not a reason for deletion. It is worth noting that the proposer has been frantically trying to undermine the article through the deletion of citations - including through the use of sock puppets - and having not been satisfied with the outcome of that approach has come here. Rangoon11 (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : No significant coverage outside the newspaper that created the term so therefor fails WP:GNG as the newspaper that creates the term cannot be seen as interdependent to the term. Mt king ^(edits) 02:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, even as regards the Times Higher Education - the THE article is very clear that the G5 is not an abstract concept invented by the THE, but an actual grouping which it is reporting on. Even the name 'G5' was not a creation of the THE. The THE was merely the first to report the existence of the grouping, which for obvious reasons wished to remain low-key and therefore did not telegraph its existence to the world.Rangoon11 (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note : Should an admin feel inclined to delete this as WP:G5 to WP:DENY the block evasion, I have no problem with that despite my !vote above. Mt king ^(edits) 02:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : agree very much with previous comment, the references are not acceptable, are primarily newspaper references, seems an extremely minimal grouping to get a wiki article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frantic1 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC) Struck comment from duckish sock of nominator. WilliamH (talk) 13:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : on balance would say delete, references not great, article doesn't really mean a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maria1357 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC) Struck comment by (yet another) sock.Rangoon11 (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Rangoon11 (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rangoon11 (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see clear evidence of use as an enduring term. Note that G5 (education) is not a suitable Google search phrase for this - try G5 university etc. I do not see the benefit in deletion, as it is a reasonable topic for users to search for and an explanation of what it refers to and how it originated is not a simple dicdef. --AJHingston (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 4. Snotbot t • c » 16:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Appears to just pass WP:GNG however this article could do with some expansion. IJA (talk) 10:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FTFT!

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

No demonstration of notability for this organisation. Has been tagged since January with no improvement. Only one of the references is independent and reliable. That is not significant coverage by itself and I can't find much else.The article is confusing and uninformative as to the size, location and activities of the organisation but from the organisation's web page it is clear that it is a small and local group of about 200 people operating in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, not a national or international programme of the worldwide Coptic Orthodox church. DanielRigal (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This is a bad article. I think it must be the youth work of a (or the) east coast USA Coptic Orthodox diocese. Unfortuantely the website (not an independent source) is rather opaque to non-cogniscenti. Accordingly (with regret) Delete unless greatly improved during the AFD period. As a diocesan programme, it might possibly qualify as notable, but I am dubious. I have litlte idea many mant Copts there are in the area. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 4. Snotbot t • c » 16:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, reliable sources are extremely unlikely to be forthcoming. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having insufficient coverage in independent third-party sources. If such sources are integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic Coffee Machine

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

Contributor 118.210.115.248 = The genericist = Jack Grieve who wrote the article, is using the already protected trademark "Atomic" (Trademark holder: ^[1]) in Australia for his coffee machines made in Taiwan. His application was refused: ^[2]. This page is used as a matter of promotion and false claims as to the legal case and doesn't reflect the history of this coffee machine. The subject of the article seems to be wether or not one is allowed to manufacture these coffee machines nowadays and under which name they should be marketed. Page "Atomic_Coffee_Machine" also witnesses poor ratings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitzkovic (talk • contribs) 04:06, 30 October 2011‎— Nitzkovic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep - none of your claims are valid reasons for deletion, except for the claim of promotion - and this Jack Grieve is not mentioned in the article, nor is any special mention of Australian brands. The article could use some better sourcing, but it's not overly promotional as you claim. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MikeWazowski, maybe i souldn't have deleted the link to his webpage before asking for deletion. (see history) The Source of the pictures is clearly labeled as sorrentinacoffee.com (see here: ^[3]). The same picture will be found on his Flickr account: ^[4] . Althought the name is not mentionned, the article clearly serves his purpose of promotion, Mr. Jack Grieve beeing the general manager of Sorrentinacoffee: ^[5] . It is a clearly a breach of the Soapbox policy. The article has a very legal angle which hasn't got its place on Wikipedia, and mainly present his personal views on the matter (Matter already discussed in a legal case in Australia see ipmonitor link above). Nitzkovic— Nitzkovic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

As the editor in question has not touched the article in six months (and for a year before that) and other editors have been free to edit and modify it in the time since, your argument about breaching the soapbox policy is invalid. I stand by my original comments. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

118.210.115.248 last contributed on the 12th of september 2011. To me, that's 48 days. His entry was a comment on a specific Blog (another breach of Wikipedia POV policy) (see ^[6]). I am only stating the obvious. Nitzkovic — Nitzkovic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Of course, you have no proof of this - just baseless accusations from someone who appears (to me) to have their own conflict of interest in the matter. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:14, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I seriously question the motives of Nitzkovic, a single purpose editor who has only previously made edits to this single article and now wants to delete it. He claims that 118.210.115.248 is Jack Grieve, which goes against WP:OUTING, while offering no proof that this is the case. The nominator seems to have some kind of axe to grind and Wikipedia is not the place for that. To me the subject of the article looks notable enough to be kept. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No particular motive, no conflict of interest. Conflicts of interest look like this: See ^[7] (with many Registered sign). I personnaly don't understand how this Atomic_coffee_machine article can be a valuable contribution to Wikipedia. Read the text carefully. The purpose of the article seems to be that this machine can be manufacturered nowadays. (noone said the contrary). The rest of the article contains some rather personal views on the "generic" value of the word "Atomic" for these coffee machines. Where is the encyclopedic value of this article? Please explain to me why your argumentation is now concentrating on my motivation/interest? Seems to me that rather than discussing the matter, you would rather attack the person. And why is my point of view less valuable as a single purpose editor? Nitzkovic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitzkovic (talk • contribs) 22:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me why the following phrases are relevant on an article about a coffee machine which production stopped in 1989: "These patents expired many decades ago and are now in the public domain." and "Given the high demand for Atomic coffee makers, and that the various patents expired many decades ago, it was only natural that someone should make reproductions based on those patents. Many people believe that such reproductions are 'fake','imitation' of 'knock off' products, however understandable such a view may be, it demonstrates a lack of understanding of intellectual property law as it is generally recognized internationally: once a patent has expired there is nothing morally or legally wrong in any party deciding to manufacture a product based on that patent. Indeed this is the social pay-off of the patent legislation. In return for a fixed period monopoly on their invention the inventor agrees to publish the details of the invention in the public domain. When the patent expires all are free to exploit it." To me, it is only relevant to the business who would like to manufacture them nowadays... the same business who wrote this article, and let his mark on the pictures. Nitzkovic (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Nitzkovic[reply]

Speedy keep Bad-faith nomination by a single purpose account who is apparently miffed that he can't insert a long-winded diatribe of his own in the article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Hidden agenda behind deletion. Nitkovic is clearly biased has made many unsubstantiated claims concerning the supposed writer/s of the atomic coffee machine article. Having already deleted and re-written much of the article (somewhat poorly) he/she now seeks to remove the entire thing. The article is/was relevant and much of the material already removed by Nikovic seemed to be relevent and worthwhile. 180.181.122.185 (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jack! "The entire thing" as you call it had no relevance what so ever apart from advertising your business, making false claim. Even the pictures you provided have your webpage linked to it. Who do you want to fool? Nitzkovic (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain me that phrase: "The Robbiati design and patent registrations cover the Atomic shape". It doesn't make sense at all. a) How can someone cover an atomic shape (atomic mushroom??? or a nucleus???)? b) The coffee machine doesn't look like a mushroom or an atom, does it?. Mr. Robbiati covered his improvements (patent). The rest is a trademark problematic (atomic name). If someone can explain how someone can cover an atomic shape ^[8] in a patent, i would be very thankful.

Nitzkovic (talk) 20:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article has been fully-protected until 11-15-2011. Nobody can edit it whatsoever, except for admins. Per the policy, "A fully protected page can be edited only by administrators. The protection may be for a specified time, or may be indefinite.". It would be unwise to close this AfD prematurely while editors cannot improve the article to establish topic notability. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So... it has been a week now. Where are the answers? "Atomic shape" was at the center of a Trademark battle in Australia (Jack Grieve (who started the article, and whose webpage address is still related to the picture of the article-> Advertising for free!) vs Irene Notaras). The sad thing beeing: There is no "Atomic shape". You need to differenciate what is a patent to what is a trademark. So easy and yet... Nitzkovic (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ because I'm actually having difficulty grepping what the requester's argument is. It's certainly not based in Wikipedia policy. -Rushyo ^Talk 23:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep as no support from anyone but nominator and no argument for deletion advanced (per WP:Speedy Keep). Note that I'm not arguing an argument hasn't been advanced, but that I can't figure out for the life of me how it relates to deletion. Also might be considered vexatious. -Rushyo ^Talk 13:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 4. Snotbot t • c » 16:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, content dispute. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's been more than a month, and the only delete vote is from the nominator, who was a WP:SPA with a possible bad faith nomination. Can we get an admin to close this as a keep? It's been open for far too long. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cannot explain why this is nominated. Plenty of sources.

Also Comment: Should the title of the article be Atomic coffee machine, without caps? Tinton5 (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments for deletion outweigh the reason for retention for given. That being said, if someone wishes to merge, please let me know and I will be able to facilitate that. –MuZemike 06:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carl's Stone Cold Lock of the Century of the Week

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

A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for web content. Neelix (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Non-notable. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 23:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a popular sports feature, well known to NFL fans in particular, and it appears regularly on national sports broadcasts and on ESPN radio, TV, and web[13]. It has wide recognition in the sports blogosphere. On the other hand, as accurately noted by the nominator, it is not easy to find web coverage in reliable sources other than ESPN. Is the ESPN coverage sufficiently "independent"? I can see arguments both ways on that. If we are left with the conclusion that it's not worthy of its own article, I'd still think it would be appropriate to preserve some of this content by merge to a suitable location, maybe at Carl Brutananadilewski or one of the other Aqua Teen Hunger Force pages.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having insufficient coverage in independent third-party sources. If such sources are integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arxiloxos and the numbers according to Adult Swim (it averages approximately 30,000 viewers per video). This needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. Beyond495 (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –MuZemike 19:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual Darwinism

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

This article was flagged for deletion. I want to include the wider community to get a second opinion.--Coin945 (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. The sources are not reliable or have tangental relevance and whilst one or two of the references are okay they're not actually being cited and seem to have been put there just as a weak attempt at preventing deletion. A little bit of WP:OR as well - the Software Architecture analogy is just... weird. -Rushyo ^Talk 13:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article is not perfect, it is a very basic stub. I think we should base this decision though on its notability disregarding the actual article itself. Otherwise an article may be deleted not because the subject is non-notable, but because of its current state. I am not the most esperienced person in this field so I made a very basic stub instead of investing a lot of time into something I didn't understand. Despite the basic article, doing a quick serch guarantees this article notability. I just think it just needs some love and care from more experienced people. I think culling it now would be a shame. P.S. the Software Architecture analogy was taken straight from the source. No original research there.--Coin945 (talk) 14:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Used by reliable sources [14] [15] [16]. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not enough for a neologism to be used in secondary sources. The sources must actually engage in substantial discussion of the term itself, which I don't see happening here. Not ready for prime time at this point. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"At this point?" What about Wikipedia:article development? You haven't even given the article a chance to grow. A notable topic has the right to be on Wikipedia regardless of its current situation. If the only issue is with its current situation, I retain my original view (as the author), keep.

Comment What I mean by 'at this point' is that currently, there are some reliable sources that use the term in passing, but I can't find a substantial number that DISCUSS the term, which is necessary for inclusion. If this evolves to sources actually discussing the term, rather than a few using it briefly in passing, then this may be more appropriate at that point. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm with Alessandra Napolitano and Coin 945 on this one. Whatever else we say I do not think we can regard this as a neologism when the earliest example we have seen is from the Harvard Crimson in 1971, and the slightly throw away use of it there suggests that it was not a new coining. That 1971 article contains a concise definition that demonstrates that it was being used in the same sense as in the WP article. There are the other examples scattered across the years since demonstrating that it has entered the lexicon. --AJHingston (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note Anyone care to help me use these sources to build on the basic stub?--Coin945 (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you do that, instead of creating piles of - un-sourced, or poorly sourced - stubs, eventually causing some waste of your, and our, time with these deletion discussions, that wouldn't have happened in the first place if you wanted to. - Nabla (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, almost all the articles which were put up for deletion have all had a keep consensus, or are heading that way, so I know that on the whole the issue is not with my articles, but with rash nominations. It is not my fault that these AFD's might be a nuisance to you. It is because people make rash nominations that I have to contest because I know the notability of the articles. There is nothing wrong with creating stub articles. I am doing what was done by many many editors early in the game, its just that now, 5 years down the track, suddenly standards have shot up and there is no such concept as stub improvement anymore. It's all - what you put in the mainspace has to be perfect. Well it doesn't. It's all about growth. You do what you can, and then others come along and build upon what you've done. That's the spirit of Wikipedia. I'm contributing to Wikipedia as much as anyone else, in my own way. Many other editors make legions of stub articles, I don't know why these particular ones are being targeted.--Coin945 (talk) 14:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on stubs being fine, no article needs to be perfect (ever, let alone after 1 hour). That IS the spirit! I think your stubs are being targeted not because they are stubs, but because they are *poor* stubs. Take a few minutes to format them, e.g. avoid bare URLs - as you did in theis discussion! - and the stubs will look much better. Use better sources than answers.com and the likes, because those are not reliable (sometimes they keep for years hoaxes that were here for a few days or even hours). If you can't find them, move on or search deeper. By doing that you'll spend more time writing good and needed stubs, instead of defending likely valid but very poor stubs. Make it look good. That is also the spirit, I'd say! - Nabla (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh well that's where I was sorely mistaken. I thought people would see past the article and instead analyse the concept itself. So you're saying the article's facade is really what gets you over the edge? So be it.--Coin945 (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some major edits. Any thoughts?--Coin945 (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can not - not completely - see past the article. Imagine a article about Portugal: «Potugal iza koutri in europa» (In big bold red letters). We should have an article about Portugal (most surely :-), but should we have that article? Evidently not. Your's are not that bad, naturally, but if you do not put any much effort in making it a decent looking article, it will not look credible. Thoughts? Yes. You ignored my suggestion to avoid bare URLs and then ask for comments? You are joking, right? - Nabla (talk) 02:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about. I have reformatted all the references in the article, in the proper format. I have also included many sources and lots of information. I fixed up the bare URL problem. I have put in effort to make the article a decent stub. What's not to like? --Coin945 (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article does look much better NOW, thank you. I note that you formatted the bare URLs 4 hours AFTER my previous comment, and you sure know that, becaue you did it after your comment. - Nabla (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know, but I thought you were referring to the sources under "References" (which were already formatted by the time you wrote the previous comment), not the sources under "External Links". Sorry, my mistake. At any rate, now they're both formatted.--Coin945 (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, refs do not establish notability. You can add "Darwinism" to countless different words, that doesn't make this a particularly noteworthy idea, even if more than one person has used this term for similar ideas. Hairhorn (talk) 03:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that they're not all talking about the same thing?--Coin945 (talk) 10:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even the entry itself seems confused about what the term is supposed to mean, conflating "ideas" and technology, and confusing the process of technological change with intellectual sparring. Hairhorn (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

neutral - the article is (despite the large improvement it had) a mess. It is a stream of «<author-name> said in <article-or-book-name> that <some-sentence-including-"intellectual-Darwinism">». They are not even related. There is intellectual Darwinism as a factor is selecting theories; there is some loosely related sentences about technology evolution; and there is intellectual Darwinism as survival / success of the smartest (richest) people. All in all, clearly "intellectual Darwinism" is a nice sounding catch phrase, and is used out there. But the current article completely fails to clearly tell us something about it. I bet we will have a good article about this some day, I am not so sure if this stub will help it to evolve in that direction, or if it will prevent it. - Nabla (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a work in progress. My job during the major edits before was just to stuff info into the article. Now that we have good sources, we can refine the article, linking up sources relating to similar things and improving the article from there. What we have is a good starting point to an article for a notable topic. There's no point going back now. I say give the article a chance to grow.--Coin945 (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still neutral, but now leaning on delete. It is a bad start. There is a good - I mean, bad... - chance it will take years before it gets into something other than a bunch of loose sentences copy & pasted together. - Nabla (talk) 21:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about these sources? Describes the term and talks a bit about it, explains the philosophy behind the concept, use of the term in 1872--Coin945 (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coin945, whatever you are doing... please, stop. Wouldn't your energy be best spent writing articles instead of unloading loads of web search results on several AfD's about crappy stubs, wasting everyone's - your included - time? - Nabla (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

test: me starting to get random refs - -Nabla (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Menard, in Intellectual Darwinism Doesn’t Always Cull Weak, says «While it would be nice to think that {...} intellectual Darwinism culls the weakest from the herd, the sad fact of the matter is that the rest of us often suffer the brunt of a bad decision made by someone else, out of our control.», Daniel Swanson, from The Harvard Crimson writes that, «There is an intellectual Darwinism among us that believes if only all that can be said or thought is permitted, right thinking will out and the best will come to the fore, But history has shown that there is an economics of ideas as surely as there is an economics of goods», Elaine Schattner, M.D. in Health Tips, News, Opinion, writes at On Media and Intellectual Darwinism in the Blogosphere, «There is value in blogging: Open coverage of news in all fields — including science and medical reports published in top-tier journals — by writers who may think “out of the box” promotes careful analysis from more varied perspectives, critical discussion of developments and, ultimately, progress.», Rocky Kolb,Edward W. Kolb, in Blind watchers of the sky, stated that «if one does adopt the viewpoint that modern natural philosophy is optimal, or near optimal,5 then within the framework of intellectual Darwinism the methods of modern science eventually would have been developed without Galileo.

and bang, in 8 minutes only, without really reading any sentence, a referenced article! - PS, OK 10, I forgot to paste the links. But hey! It even has links to real books! - Nabla (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I promisse I did NOT took my above references to make a Coin945-style articel from the article. I siomply picked the first few reasonable links from a Google search. Strange thing that these are the article ref's? Is it? Coin945, to get the first google results, there is already Google, thank you very much. changing my vote to delete - Nabla (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have been swayed towards delete throughout the discussion. I was just trying to find more sources to see if the article was salvagable. Theres no point stuffing info into an article if it is not good info, so that is the only reason why I listed the sources in here first. I have been sufficiently convinced. I will henceforth not contribute to this AfD and let you guys battle it out. You're right. This is wasting everyone's time. Sorry about that. Whatever the result is, so be it.--Coin945 (talk) 03:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - Nabla (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR. There are many references that use this bigram, but in hugely divergent ways. The article basically just lists what each says. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It's a pretty lame article as it stands, and virtually the work of a single editor, but it does deal with a genuine phenomenon and cite some adequate references. DaveApter (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not a neologism, several quality sources. Article needs work, but AfD is not for cleanup. —SW— ^spout 17:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. –MuZemike 06:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hanunoo

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

Both entries link to the same page. Redundant. Perhaps a direct from Hanuno'o language to Hanuno'o.?--Coin945 (talk) 11:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep or redirect if there is a primary target - they do not link to the same article - but WP:TWODABS: If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article. Christian75 (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my mistake...--Coin945 (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move dab to Hanunó'o. There doesn't appear to be a primary topic so having a dab seems valid. But since both articles use the spelling "Hanunó'o" the dab should be at this title, with Hanunóo and Hanunoo as redirects. France3470 (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Close this AfD. Hanunoo is fine as it is. I made a mistake in thinking the two entries reidrected to the same thing.--Coin945 (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –MuZemike 06:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of nicknames used in cricket

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

A list of trivia, with many unsourced personal overtones and dubious claims. If people want to find player nicknames, they would most likely go straight to the players article. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 11:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

_{I have notified the IP at User talk:122.61.57.67 as he appears to be an interested party. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Pointless trivia that sits at a level of immaturity, prevalent years ago, from which the site is rapidly evolving. The list is bound to be contentious in any case as nicknames constantly change. More seriously, I would point out potential WP:BLP consequences as it would be very easy to list a nickname that the target finds insulting. In fact, for that reason it should be a speedy delete. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 12:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Interesting and (for the most part) well-sourced. Could do with some additional sources, would be great to see it expanded too. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems quite easy to find sources for this such as this. The topic is therefore notable and should be kept in accordance with our editing policy. Warden (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Jack. This was started by me years ago wheh such things were acceptable but I'm glad to see that Wikipedia has moved on. Unencyclopaedic and best left to the newspapers and fansites. Moondyne (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy to find coverage of such stuff in encyclopedia, e.g. "Alfred Mynn (1807-1861), nicknamed 'the lion of Kent' and Alfred the Great', was the most famous cricketer of the first half of the 19th century." (Encyclopedia of British Sport) Notice that Alfred Mynn and his nicknames are not in the list, even though he was an especially famous cricketer. This indicates that the list has not been done thoroughly and so has much scope for improvement per our editing policy. See also WP:UNENCYC: "Unencyclopedic" is an empty argument. Warden (talk) 09:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You may have a point re WP:UNENCYC as that tends to be subjective. But could you comment on WP:BLP which is implicit here as explained above? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 20:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP requires that content about living people should be reliably sourced, which most of this article's content appears to be. It doesn't mandate the removal of all content that subjects might find embarrassing. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the nomination indicates that the nicknames are still expected to be found in the players' articles so I can't see that there's any special BLP problem with this list. The main problem I'm seeing is that of WP:RECENTISM. Where, for example, is W. G. Grace whose nicknames included, The Doctor, The Old Man and The Champion? How can anyone work on a cricketing list without considering him - it's amazing!? Warden (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Covert to a category of redirects Category:Redirects to Cricketers from their nicknames. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 06:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jan-Willem Breure

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

No clear evidence of notability meeting WP:BIO criteria. The Anome (talk) 10:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. --Cerebellum (talk) 08:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having insufficient coverage in independent third-party sources. If such sources are integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per weak consensus and as an unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rikki Paylor

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

Declined speedy because I see semi-pro as a good faith claim of importance. However, in trying to source the article to show notability, Google is failing me. Lots of passing mentions, but nothing that meets WP:BIO. Fabrictramp | talk to me 04:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nom that this should not have been speedied, but it seems pretty clear that Paylor isn't notable. Only played in a semi-pro league so doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY and I'm unable to find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so doesn't meet WP:GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 12:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having insufficient coverage in independent third-party sources. If such sources are integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Up Jumped the Devil: American 'Devil' Songs 1920s–1950s

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

I found zero significant coverage. Non-notable album. SL93 (talk) 02:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. I can't find anything in terms of coverage beyond sales pages. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 03:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having insufficient coverage in independent third-party sources. If such sources are integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Compilation release from obscure indie label. If the label was notable, this article could justify its existence. Otherwise, it fails the test. --Fightingirish (talk) 13:38, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orange County LAFCO

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

Non-notable organization. Author has COI. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 26. Snotbot t • c » 20:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite. The commission appears to be notable, in that it receives a fair amount of significant news coverage [17]. However, this news coverage is not reflected in the current article. The current article is basically a bureaucratic screed about the agency and doesn't even say how it is funded or how the commissioners are chosen, much less describe the historic changes that have taken place according to the news articles from the 1980s and 1990s - such as the commission's expansion from the original five members to the current eleven. --MelanieN (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The agency is notable as it has a major impact on unincorporated areas in Orange County, California. For example, the annexation of Sunset Beach by Huntington Beach that received significant press coverage such as this was a result of the actions of LAFCO. 72Dino (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Alternatively, stubify. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOLI Database

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

Non-notable; unsourced except to primary source Orange Mike | Talk 00:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 26. Snotbot t • c » 20:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is described as "the largest and most comprehensive regulatory database available"[18]. I think it is very notable, just fairly obscure to the non-chemists, and not very detailed and referenced. --Iantresman (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Important to chemists and environmentalists as a source of material safety data sheets. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, importance in chemistry field. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 05:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. One ten-year-old review for a claimed-current system and a dead link to a website don't cut the mustard. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NRVE. All claims of WP:Notability must be verifiable as 'The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth'. Obviously if such evidence is put forward then I'm happy to change my verdict. -Rushyo ^Talk 14:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep as notability well-established by Cullen328's recent revisions. -Rushyo ^Talk 01:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Iantresman's keep has a press release. SL93 (talk) 16:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep: I have been convinced. SL93 (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The company that maintains this database also has an article, ChemADVISOR, Inc., which is completely unreferenced. Merging and redirecting these two into one would be a good place to start. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've expanded the article and added several new references. Disregard the press release linked above - it is not necessary to see that this topic is notable. I've corrected the dead external link. I am a bit mystified by Stuarteates comment about a "ten year old review". I assume the reference is to the 1991 review in Journal of the American Chemical Society, published over 20 years ago. This is a detailed, in-depth review of a chemical safety database which is used worldwide and developed using data from every relevant regulatory agency in every significant country. Please remember that notability is not temporary, and 20 year old coverage in a respected scientific journal founded in 1879 is just as useful for establishing notability as an article in the current issue. I wonder whether those who are recommending deletion took a look at this reference? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment One review doesn't imply notability to me, really. It implies someone took the time to look at it - but that can happen with anything. I can find reviews for many of the things I've created (software, articles, etc) in well-respected literature and I don't feel any one of them meets our notability requirements. Regardless, I've U-turned on my stance in light of the evidence presented. -Rushyo ^Talk 01:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –MuZemike 06:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Signature song

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

No reliable sources can be found that treat the subject itself in any detail. There is already an article titled song. Wiktionary has a definition for the adjective form of 'signature' on the off chance that a reader is unfamiliar with the word. This article is unnecessary for further clarification and only functions as a list of songs about which a reliable source has used the term 'signature'. If that's good enough for an article, why not create an article titled Great song wherein we list songs called 'great' by a reliable source? Most of the prose could be copied from this article with some minor tweaking. Why not Terrible song? Etc. At least One-hit wonder can be supported by chart positions... Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 20:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick search indicates that the concept is well-used in sources for particular artists, e.g. that My Way became Sinatra's signature song. There seem to be systematic studies too. For example, I find reference in a bibliography to Theme Songs of the Big Band Era which is "An alphabetical list of over 850 big band leaders and ensembles. Each entry includes the title of their theme or signature song(s)." Warden (talk) 10:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any evidence that that book (or any of the systematic studies you may have found) treats the concept of a signature song in any detail, or is it just a list? Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 12:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with song. A lot of the information in the article is either unnecessary, original research or unsourced. The main aspects of the article can be merged with the previously mentioned article (which, for the record, is shorter than this article). Till I Go Home (talk) 10:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would not be a good target because that's about vocal music and some signatures are just music. The essence of the topic is the association with particular artists not the style of the music. Theme music has something to say about this topic too but that is even more general and is more about the association with other media such as TV series. All of these articles are weak and require more development before we can say that one is dominant. Warden (talk) 10:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Etta James will whip the a-- of anyone who dares to try to take her signature song away from her.[19] TVTropes recognizes it.[20] See it "My Way", show some "Respect" and "Stand by Me", or else "Hit the Road Jack". Clarityfiend (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum. The nominator even acknowledges it "functions as a list of songs about which a reliable source has used the term 'signature'". It's only a question of whether it should be a list or a full-blown article. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you also advocate the creation of articles/lists about "great" songs and "terrible" songs? And why stop there? Surely we can compile scores of song lists based on adjectives that reliable sources throw around. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 02:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too late: List of songs deemed the worst, List of songs considered the best, The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time. The first has survived five Afds. (See also signature dish.) Clarityfiend (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are about the concept of the Worst song or Best song. You seem to be arguing to change this article to a list. (The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time is about a magazine article, not the concept.) - SummerPhD (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of Signature Songs. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While there are numerous sources using the term, we do not have substantial coverage about the concept. As for the idea of a List of signature songs, we have a fundamental problem in that there are few examples that are universally (or nearly so) agreed upon. While most might agree that Tony Bennett is best known for leaving his heart in San Francisco, the overwhelming majority of cases are not so clear. Check a dozen sources for the Beatles or Rolling Stones and we'll have a dozen "one song (or, in some cases, one of a few songs) that a popular and well-established singer or band is most closely identified with or best known for". - SummerPhD (talk) 14:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Seriously? Ask the average person about Frank Sinatra, Bob Hope, Ella Fitzgerald, Bruce Springsteen, etc., and 99% of the time, they will agree on the song. And there's no real restriction on the number of signature songs an individual can have, just that they've made them theirs. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm, I wish I had a reliable source to check your criterion against. Oh, and "Theme from New York, New York", "Thanks for the Memory", "A-Tisket, A-Tasket" and "Born in the U.S.A." – how'd I do? Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 00:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Bonus round: x a m i n e r.com/frank-sinatra-in-national/how-many-signature-songs-did-frank-sinatra-have How many signature songs did Frank Sinatra have? For clarity's sake, this article does not provide meaningful discussion of the concept. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I say Keep. Such a widely used concept must be analysed somewhere - it's just a case of digging. I did manage to find this strange mystical use of the phrase: "Within fifteen minutes you will probably have the essence of your own signature song, one known only to you and faery. Your signature song will identify you and help empower you when you go to faery to gather healing knowledge and..."[21]. Then there's this: A Guide to Famous Singers' Signature Song, Vol. 1 - seems like a pretty indepth analysis to me. What about "perennially savvy vaudevillean turns the cult formula, like the signature-song, inside-out"[22] In "A guide to popular music reference books: an annotated bibliography", "Each entry includes the title of their theme or signature song(s)". (along with their record company name and issue number etc, that is, it is considered just as inportant)[23].--Coin945 (talk) 09:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Guide to Famous Singers' Signature Song, Vol. 1 is a compilation of Wikipedia articles. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 12:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth, the book may have extra info as well that we can use. BTW having a reread of the article, I think it does an awesome job, at least for a work-in-progress, for an article about signature songs. Im not sure what else you could really write about such a topic. Perhaps history of the term?--Coin945 (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certain the book has no original content. The whole idea of those publishers is to make a buck without doing any work. At any rate, no matter how much we may want to believe the "signature song" concept has been analyzed somewhere, no one has shown that it has. And one of the reasons for deletion reads: "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline". That describes this article, which fails WP:GNG because no reliable sources "address the subject directly in detail". Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 19:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on a sec... so if that company published that book, can Wikipedia be sued for having the exact same text as a copyrighted book, that it, isn't it COPYVIO? That would just be too twisted..... Also, I honestly do think it is just a case of digging. I just scraped the surface. I don't know how much you have done, but I do have hopes that there are some sources out there. Who knows, i might be wrong, but theres only one way to find out.--Coin945 (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia holds the copyright, the content is just available under a license that allows others to use it for profit. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 19:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I misunderstood. I thought that as free knowledge, nobody owned it.--Coin945 (talk) 19:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's irrelevant to this article, but I must correct Two Hearted River's statement. The copyright is held by the individual editor(s) who wrote the article, not by Wikipedia or its owner, the Wikimedia Foundation. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Coin945. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note Signature Tune is not strictly the same as a signature song, but it can be included in the same page.[24][25][26][27][28][29]--Coin945 (talk) 02:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note I know TV Tropes isn't notable but it's fun to read what they have to say anyway: [30]. Also, what about these sources I have compiled:

The problem remains. Each of these mentions a song that the author believes is a particular artist's "signature song". However, this article is purportedly about the concept of a signature song. None of these discuss the concept in any meaningful way. This is the difference between Fruit and List of fruits. The first one (which this article would strive to mirror) gives various definitions of what a fruit is, a history of the various meanings, information on how fruits develop, info on the importance of fruits in human and animal diets, etc. The other lists fruits. Is an apple a fruit? Yes, it goes in the list article. Is "My Way" Frank Sinatra's signature song? No, it's "Young at Heart". No, it's "All the Way". No, it's "It Was a Very Good Year". No, it's "Strangers in the Night". No, it's "New York, New York". Etc. You might as well have a List of the Most Bestest Superheroes Eva. Can we find sources saying this, that or the other song is Sinatra's signature song? Sure. We can also find reliable sources saying Wonder Woman is the best superhero ever. This does not mean we should list either or start an article about The most kick-ass women in fiction. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that first link is exactly why this page is not necessary. We are familiar with the "signature" concept, so there's no need for further elaboration of song in a separate article. It's the same reason we don't have pages for 24kt gold, Northern Hemisphere country, and silver automobile. (Sorry for disregarding WP:BEANS.) Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 04:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I would have thought that all those references to how important signature songs can be: 2 says that his sigsong became the sigsong of his state - it became that important, 3 says sigsongs are important anthems, 4 says that they become standards, 5 seems to establish the age of the term (reference to Vic era), 6 equates sig song to most loved song, 7 sig song = song they sing the most, 8 sig song had "a deeply resonant reflection on American history", so on and so forth. Also, with the case of knowing exactly what someone's signature song is, well this isn't some arbitrary decision. Various sources write about artist's sig songs. We record verafiable sources. IF that means saying: NYT said Michael Jackson's song is Thriller, while The Rolling Stones says that it is Bad etc... no problem there...--Coin945 (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're extending those conclusions to all "signature songs", which from quick scans of the text is quite obviously unwarranted. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 13:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that these can be cited as examples of the importance of sig songs, in that they ARE "yadda yadda yadda", and ARE able to cause "yadda yadda yadda", and are still cherished "yada yadda yadda" years after __. I will put that info into the article under "Importance" when I get have free time.--Coin945 (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well understood concept. Fully referenced. Not sure what the problem is... The Steve 12:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is simply that no discussion of the concept can be found, which means it fails WP:GNG. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 13:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a work in progress. Yes, the concept may not be entirely verefiable, but certain bits are, like those given in the sources above. For such a widely used term, it is utterly ridiculous for it to be deleted. This article, I imagine would be great use to many people and as long as it gives correct info, it isn't doing any harm. I say leave the poor article alone. If in the future, we can find better osurces, awesome, but theres no point in getting rid of valuable work that is interesting and important to many readers of Wikipedia.--Coin945 (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia is a work in progress. Yes, we have numerous examples of someone calling a song a "signature song". However, we do not have any reliable sources discussing this vague, though common, term. We can certainly find sources calling various people a "Pain in the ass" or various days the "Best day ever", but those uses are also not discussed in reliable sources. Heck, we could start an article Tall buildings and list every building any reliable source has ever called "tall". However, we've generally agreed not to do that because the resulting "articles" (if you can call them that) are worthless collections of random mentions of a vague concept. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable "mentions of a vague concept" are perfectly acceptable in an encyclopedia. Listing many songs that could possibly be Frank Sinatra's signature song is unencyclopedic, I grant you, but if we collect sources like: "New York Times described Moon River as Frank Sinatra's signature song, and it became his most cherished song", or "Mary Belipop writes in her book "Made It Up For Argument's Sake" that Frank Sinatra's hit "Come Fly With Me" became a standard in all his concerts following its initial recording in 1957, and has since become his signature song" --> we can then say: NYT argues ______, while Mary Belipop suggests ______. Nothing wrong there. (P.S two of those articles you suggested are actually blue-linked :P)--Coin945 (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Check out the blue links and keep your tongue in your mouth...) "Pain in the ass", then, awaits your attention. "New York Times described John Doe as a pain in the ass and he continues to annoy people today", or "Jane Smith writes in her book "Made It Up For Argument's Sake" that John Doe became a standard pain in the ass following his first letter to the Times, and he has since become a bigger pain in the ass" --> we can then say: NYT argues ______, while Mary Belipop suggests ______. Nothing wrong there? Something very wrong there: There are no reliable sources discussing the concept of a "signature song" which is supposedly the topic of this article. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't accept your analogy as being valid. In my example, the two sources gave example of why sig songs are important, what their legacy can be, why they are so much more significant that their other songs etc. - important information. In your example, your quote do not establish any sort of importance with the phrase (or even the concept) of being a "pain in the ass". Rather, they just give examples of people who are. Well.... the first quote could be used to help define the term as it establishes that being a pain in the ass = annoying people, but I see no merit in your second sentence. It doesn't explain at all why the concept of being a pain in the ass in important, what it's definition is etc. All you could really say with that in the Wikipedia article is that "In some cases, this quality of being a pain in the ass can worsen over time etc." - in that respect, the info possibly has some merit. (P.S in case you didn't realise, what I said before was a joke. I know neither of those two actually link to the concepts you were referring to! :D--Coin945 (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The concept is certainly discussed - here and here, for instance. However, I didn't have time to check the 20000 results for signature song in Google books alone. Also here and here - sources used for Cancion insignia The Steve 07:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou The Steve! While the other sources you provided were fleeting references, the final source you gave is exactly what we've been looking for. It establishes both how the concept of sig songs were created and also why they are so important to the music industry. I can't be bothered to type the whole thing here, but read pg. 157 at this page.

Also here [31], perhaps here [32], here [33], here [34], here [35], here [36], this is great: [37], here [38], here [39], and here [40].

Please just take away this ridiculous AfD notice, and give us a chance to actually work on the article instead of wasting all this time talking about it. All this yapping isn't helping Wikipedia one bit. We've given you all the sources you need, we've done the hard part, now all we have to is stuff the info into the article. Hey presto, everyone's happy. This AfD is starting to grow tiresome.......--Coin945 (talk) 11:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every one of the mentions you and The Steve have found is fleeting. Every one of them. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 11:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, they are fleeting, but so what? Are you seriously telling me that 14 cites in reliable sources about the concept/definition and 20,000 examples in books isn't good enough for wikipedia?! That doesn't seem like a good reason to delete to me... The Steve 02:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. If an idea as old and well-known as this one is not well-documented, then WP ought to pick up the ball and fix that. Sig-songs are common currency in identifying artists whose names may be under-familiar, but whose memorable performances made the song 'theirs'. "Peggy Lee?" "Sang Fever". "Oh yeah." There are countless examples.
Honestly, though I don't have time to prove it, I find it hard to believe that that sig-songs haven't discussed many times by pop music experts. But if that's not the case, it's great that WP now-and-then need to blaze trails. In fact that's one of the things that makes WP uniquely valuable for many people ill-served by previous, more formal and/or space-limited so-called 'references'. Articles like this serve the very people underserved by the less egalitarian tomes of yesteryear.
I also disagree with the idea of integrating it with "theme song" ... while there may be some parallels, they're two quite different ideas. Twang (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. On a quick Google Books for "encyclopedia "signature song" I got 224 finds... proof enough that the concept is in widespread use. Will it take work to document it in each case? - sure. Is there some rush? Twang (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the idea "is not well-documented" Wikipedia should not have an article on it. That's how Wikipedia works. Yeah, I'm sure searching for "signature song" on Google turned up a lot of hits. Google books turns up 179,000 hits for "pain in the ass". "Ugly sweater" turns up 688. Bottom line, Wikipedia does not "blaze trails". - SummerPhD (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied A7 by Jimfbleak ‎(A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content)). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criptik War: A New Begining

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

Unreferenced article about an upcoming game. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Prod was contested without comment, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 08:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 06:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Defooing

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

Same deal (This article was proposed to be deleted. I just thoguht I might be better to include the whole community for opinions, incase the issue is with the articles' current situation, not with the concept itself.) I probably agree with this one though, in retrospect. Perhaps a redirect to Emancipation of minors? --Coin945 (talk) 08:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note I just found a source relating to term that was in the New York Times: [41]. Once you click on the link, you can't find it, but take a peek at the first link on the GoogleNews page..--Coin945 (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per my rationale in the proposed deletion. A name-drop in one NYT article does not notability make, in-depth coverage does. There isn't anywhere near sufficient sourcing to sustain this article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I stand by my original assessment. The "sources" added to the articles are blogs, forum posts, "Ayn Rand said" and the like. None of them are reliable or demonstrate notability. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with one real source plus a blog, this appears to be a non-notable neologism. LadyofShalott 22:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about now?--Coin945 (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can pretty much say "ditto" to SeraphimBlade's comment. We need WP:reliable sources, which excludes most of what's been used in this article. LadyofShalott 00:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources, just blogs, forums, and advocacy sites—much less the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" that WP:GNG requires. First Light (talk) 03:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't quite understand the proposer's statement but after having reviewed the article and its sources and looked for more, I concur with FirstLight above. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially this article, along with many others were nominated for deletion rather rashly. I switched the nominations so they went to AfDs instead, so the wider community could voice their opinions. This article in particular, though salvageable to some degree, is probably the least encyclopedic out of the bunch (in retrospect)--Coin945 (talk) 07:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having insufficient coverage in independent third-party sources. If such sources are integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. m.o.p 04:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brenton Primmer

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

as per WP:BLP1E. unremarkable career, only known for his major injury. LibStar (talk) 07:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Although the injury was not minor, he is only known for one event. SL93 (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:1E. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Known for his injury (1E as noted above) and less so for being the son of a trainer of a well-known racehorse (Makiato), which does not confer notability. Colon el Tom 11:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bimoment

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

Pretty much more of the same (This article was proposed to be deleted. I just thoguht I might be better to include the whole community for opinions, incase the issue is with the articles' current situation, not with the concept itself). Apparently the only thing wrong with this article is that it is a "dictionary definition", not because of it lacking in notibility. Thoughts? --Coin945 (talk) 07:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yes, I agree that the problem is only with the current situation. There are 37,000 google books results for bimoment, including [42] and [43], both of which seem like substantial coverage, and the article could probably be expanded pretty easily. --Cerebellum (talk) 08:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a valid stub, and there is no reason to assume that it could not be expanded beyond a definition. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hi. I'm the one who proposed the article for deletion originally, and yes, it was not based on notability but on WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary. If the article is indeed expanded, that would eliminate that concern. I'll go ahead and add a WP:NOT tag for now, in anticipation of the article being retained for further development. --DGaw (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NOTDICTIONARY is not a reason to delete an article that is admitted to be capable of expansion beyond a dictionary definition. James500 (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 19:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nat Powers

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

I am the author of this article, you may delete it if you wish and I will restore it when more references are available to add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poeticalson (talk • contribs) 01:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article was originally deleted as BLPPROD but was restored at the original author's request. Since then a couple of unreliable sources have been added. The only claims to notability in this article are through association with notable artists. Fails WP:MUSIC. Pburka (talk) 05:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sam Sneed. Subject has not received significant coverage. --Cerebellum (talk) 08:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sam Sneed per above. I can't find significant coverage of the artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Up Tack (talk • contribs) 03:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable biography with no significant sources. Stormbay (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having insufficient coverage in independent third-party sources. If such sources are integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficeint sources, an apparently non-notable too. DaveApter (talk) 14:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied A9 by Phantomsteve (A9: Article about a musical recording, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject and where the artist has no article (CSDH)). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boukyaku no Kane

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

The band's article was deleted after an AfD discussion, so their records should probably go too. Michitaro (talk) 03:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable release by a band that was that deleted in AfD. SL93 (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article appears to meet the A9 speedy deletion criterion, and has been tagged. Gongshow ^Talk 02:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied A9 by Phantomsteve ‎(A9: Article about a musical recording, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject and where the artist has no article (CSDH)). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fuyuuta

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

The band's article was deleted after an AfD discussion, so their records should probably go too. Michitaro (talk) 03:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 03:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable release by a band that was that deleted in AfD. SL93 (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article appears to meet the A9 speedy deletion criterion, and has been tagged. Gongshow ^Talk 02:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied A9 by Phantomsteve ‎(A9: Article about a musical recording, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject and where the artist has no article (CSDH)). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kuroimure

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

The band's article was deleted after an AfD discussion, so their songs should probably go too. Michitaro (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it for speedy deletion (A9). Mattg82 (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied A9 by Phantomsteve (A9: Article about a musical recording, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject and where the artist has no article (CSDH)). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matsuro (Tokyo Heroes)

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

The band's article was deleted after an AfD discussion (see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tokyo_Heroes_(band)), so their songs should probably go too. Michitaro (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it for speedy deletion (A9). Mattg82 (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –MuZemike 19:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Team Blitz Breakfast

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

Very forgettable product that isn't notable and probably not available in most of the world (or most of the USA, for that matter) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Tabatchnick would more sense to me. JDOG555 (talk) 04:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's best, of course, not to merge something that will get deleted anyway, and I think this content would be deleted from the target article by a conscientious editor. Thus, I would prefer a redirect, if anything. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having insufficient coverage in independent third-party sources. If such sources are integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Austin & Ally. Sandstein 07:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Lynch

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

PROD removed. Not notable per WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Lead in a current series but no other significant credits. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ Found one article that provides in-depth content of Lynch through the Denver Post: [44], he's given more than just a passing mention in this Spanish article [45], and he also appears multiple times in this cast interview of the upcoming show [46]. I think this is sufficient for the general notability guideline, but I'm more reluctant to fully support keeping the article because all of the coverage seems to focus on this particular series (which has not yet even released). I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per WP:BLP1E to Austin & Ally, as " reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event" and, as correctly said by Jethrobot, all the sources about him are focused on the series.--Cavarrone (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per Cavarrone, as I agree with their assessment. This content (for now) is more appropriate in the context of the TV show. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He may be new, but since he is the lead in the show and I do have his date of birth you have no choice, but to keep this article up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChHP211 (talk • contribs)

It's a show that hasn't aired yet, so asserting his notability is premature. Even if the show is notable, it's been noted above that this might be a case of people who are famous for one thing. Also, I'm not entirely sure why knowing when he was born supports a claim to notability for people. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 20:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the show has aired. But I agree about the birthday part. We've got perfectly good BLPs with no birthday at all, so that makes no difference. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 20:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect per above. Once there's more coverage in secondary sources, an article can be created. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 16:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect as per the above. Usual Caveats apply, though - it's early days in a young person's career, and they may well end up notable. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added an anchor at Austin & Ally#Ross Lynch as a possible redirect target. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Virtual Accordion

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

Does not seem to be a notable product. Mattg82 (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reliable sources are unlikely to be forthcoming. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 02:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having insufficient coverage in independent third-party sources. If such sources are integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. m.o.p 04:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Datta

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

Non-notable person. Only claims to notability not credible. The film directed by him fails WP:NF, and the theatrical group he founded has 0 google news hits. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 02:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Spot on. -Rushyo ^Talk 13:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person. Could not find any third party sources to establish notability. Tinton5 (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Shadowjams (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having insufficient coverage in independent third-party sources. If such sources are integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was I withdraw the nomination per sources that have been provided.. v/r - T P 23:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crips and Bloods: Made in America

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

Unsourced article about a documentry. No assertion of importance or significance. Article is largly no about the film but about the Crips and Bloods. Has been tagged with notability concerns since Feb 2011. v/r - T P 02:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Film seems have been reviewed pretty extensively, per [47] and especially [48], but I don't have much experience with film and don't know if reviews are considered routine coverage. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Per [49] and 20 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. SL93 (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NF and WP:GNG. The rather incisive articles in The New York Times PBS(1), PBS (2), ITVS, Los Angeles Times, and a number of other sources tells me we have notability. I do agree that the article's current state is poor, and that issues have not been addressed... but notability is found in a topic having coverage, and not in the article itself. With respects to the nominator, and sad that it has not yet been done, I don't think it best to delete when issues can be easily addressed through regular editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cakeboy

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

I found nothing that shows that this musician is notable. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable, third-party sources. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable musician. Stormbay (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having insufficient coverage in independent third-party sources. If such sources are integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:57, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Chriss

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

Nominating on behalf of unregistered User:207.38.212.61, whose rationale I will paste below. I contested WP:PROD deletion on the basis that this wasn't clear-cut enough to delete without discussion, and am neutral until I have looked into this further. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page exists for the purpose of self-promotion and was most likely written by Neil.

The first two sections, "Early Career" and "Academia", are simply pulled from "How I Became A Quant." Conveniently, Neil wrote his chapter in How I Became A Quant. Every chapter in that book is a first person narrative, written by the subject. The statements could be true, but they are directly from the mouth of the author, and therefore biased and unsubstantiated.

The section on Wall Street is primarily a sequence of name dropping. Unsubstantiated statements include

The Risk Magazine named Chriss one of the "Top Ten to Watch in the next Ten Years" in 1997.
One person in particular was Peter Muller who inspired Chriss to pursue quantitative trading.
He joined the group after Cliff Asness, John Liew and Bob Krail left to form AQR Capital Management.
Ray Iwanowski and Mark Carhart became heads of the group and recruited Neil Chriss.
Chriss departed Goldman and the trader game in 2000 to start a brokerage business.

The section on Mathematical Finance education lacks any citations.

The section on "Hedge funds" lacks citation. Most glaringly:

The details of his time at SAC are not well known. Chriss resigned from the firm in early 2007.

Neil is no more notable than any other person with a PhD who has gone on to work in finance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.212.61 (talk) 01:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article could use improvement, as mentioned above, including verification of the biographical information and removal of some of the boasting. However, the subject does appear to meet the requirements of WP:ACADEMIC. Some of his articles at Google Scholar have been cited hundreds of times. --MelanieN (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject has a couple cited papers, but he is not the first author on them. The rest of the article is unverified boasting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etraindown (talk • contribs) 03:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Has at least one book, Black-Scholes and beyond option pricing models, currently in more than 500 major libraries worldwide according to WorldCat.--Eric Yurken (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article needs de-Peacock-ing and a bit of Slash-and-Burn editing, but the core of it is sound. People may not like vain hedge-fund managers, but Chriss is notable for a range of reasons. Here he is in the New York Times Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've de-fluffed it a bit. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:PROF. SL93 (talk) 16:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Commment. Assuming that the unattributed statements objected to in the prod could be referenced, would there be any rationale for deletion left? If not, I vote weak keep. (Lack of references is not grounds for deletion.) Otherwise, I would need to see a clearer deletion rationale. Sławomir Biały (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The arguments for retention outweigh the arguments for deletion given. –MuZemike 19:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Armando Martín Borque

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

Co-founder of a Mexican supermarket chain with Francisco Martin Borque, but nominated separately because prod was contested with a reason, that being that it was not a case of INHERITED. As above, no sources in English, and limited sources in Spanish. MSJapan (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seem to be quite a few Spanish-language sources. See [50], [51], [52], [53], and the other results from this gnews search. Coverage was not limited to his death, either - see [54], [55]. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Cerebellum's links are enough to convince me. SL93 (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to vote anything but delete while the article contains no independent sources, as per BLP. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a BLP. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Cerebellum. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 07:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No agruments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Martín Borque

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

Does not meet basic coverage requirements of WP:PEOPLE, and has not received any awards. The few sources available are additionally in Spanish only (mainly one book findable on Amazon). He was co-founder of a Mexican supermarket chain, but the notability of that is not determinable in English sources. Prod contested, no reason given. MSJapan (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- From what I can ascertain, at least -- as according to the reference given in the corresponding article, he's the founder of Mexico's largest retailer. Doesn't matter if the only available sources are in Spanish. WP:PEOPLE states that to be notable, a person must be "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". This person is significant enough. From what I've just learnt he's one of the top entrepreneurs in the history of Mexico. Here's an article about him in Spanish: [56] ... and that book in Spanish is a biography. That's coverage. Obvious keeper. PhnomPencil ^{talk contribs} 01:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PhnomPencil. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, similar reasoning as for Armando Martín Borque. See results of this gnews search. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable coverage in Spanish. SL93 (talk) 16:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect, clearly not enough info out there. Shii (tock) 05:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red Orb Entertainment

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

Unsourced article, prod contested by IP, who solved the "sourcing problem" by adding a link to metacritic and neoseeker (both of which are nothing more than a list of their games). An article that is nothing more than a product list from a defunct company does not meet GNG. MSJapan (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Brøderbund I see nothing here conferring independent notability. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 21:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having insufficient coverage in independent third-party sources. If such sources are integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Alternatively redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kabulnath newsweek

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

No indictation of notability. Speedy was removed without comment, possibly by a sockpuppet. Eeekster (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem verifiable. --Cerebellum (talk) 14:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having insufficient coverage in independent third-party sources. If such sources are integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Rose Levy

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

Does not appear to meet the WP:BIO notability criteria. Contest Prod. Pink Bull 03:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Smells like WP:AUTOBIO. Edited by one user with no other contributions. The only thing that could be considered notable -- that she was the first female bowler on this men's bowling team -- really isn't. I don't think the team would even get an article. PhnomPencil ^{talk contribs} 01:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Spam masquerading as an bio. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The team isn't even notable. SL93 (talk) 16:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can hardly find any mention in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having insufficient coverage in independent third-party sources. If such sources are integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Levitan, Sharon & Co.

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

Non-Notable company, fails both WP:GNG and WP:ORG, no real claim to significance. Mt king ^(edits) 11:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is one of the top 500 lawfirms in the world, and a leading one in Israel. The question is where you draw the line: here, and should this lawfirm be one of those here, and in my opinion it should be (In insurance and torts it is at the same level as Naschitz Brandes & Co. which, I know, is marked here as not notable, but in Israel, it is very notable - both are). Deror (talk) 11:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG defines the bar as "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article" and Levitan, Sharon & Co. don't seem to have that, it is nothing to do with size, number of offices, staff numbers or place on a ranking list. Mt king ^(edits) 20:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having insufficient coverage in independent third-party sources. If such sources are integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 17:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steadfast Trust

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

This is a totally non-notable organisation, and the article does not attempt to demonstrate any notability. There seems to be no reliable, independent evidence of the existence of this group, let alone of its activities and significance. The only Google hits are to its own website, and to comments in right-wing or anti-fascist blogs. I could find no Google Books or Google News references. After I prodded the article, an editor inserted a citation from a local newspaper which makes a passing reference to the organisation, but this still does not establish, nor even assert, notability. The editor also inserted a link to a BBC article; but this does not even mention the group RolandR (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the article referenced made note of a £2000 pound donation made by the organization, this is just one of their actions. The other referenced article was to prove that such a cause (campaign for St. Edmund's patronage of England) existed. Willknowsalmosteverything (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why is this organisation notable again? I can't see how it passes the WP:GNG. Ok it may of had a brief mention in mainstream media but so do lots of things, doesn't mean it is notable. IJA (talk) 10:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments for deletion outweigh the argument for retention given. –MuZemike 19:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Empire

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

Even though I feel that this should meet the notability criteria, I can't find coverage at reliable sources which are independent of the subject. The last AfD resulted in no consensus. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Documented in sources such as The Knights Next Door: Everyday People Living Middle Ages Dreams and King Arthur in popular culture. Warden (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having insufficient coverage in independent third-party sources. If such sources are integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I don't feel as strongly as he does, but my views mirror Stuartyeates'. --Legis (talk - contribs) 10:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete nn reenactment group Shii (tock) 05:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kompanie 1

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet the notability criteria, I can't find coverage at reliable sources which are independent of the subject. The last AfD ending in no consensus, but that was back in 2005. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—no notability demonstrated in any reliable source. N2e (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having insufficient coverage in independent third-party sources. If such sources are integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Repent Amarillo. –MuZemike 19:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amarillo Citizens against Repent Amarillo

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

does not meet general notability guidelines. Article seems to be more about one Jacob Isom. By article, I'm not even sure this is a real organization. 78.26 (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Repent Amarillo, insufficient coverage in RS to be independently notable. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete and merge~~. The only non-Facebook source to mention this group (this one) mentions it only in passing. This group's only aim (disrupt Repent Amarillo) is a good one but it's so compartmentalized that notability apart from its reactions to Repent Amarillo almost can't be established. CityO fSilver 00:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Redirect and merge per User:First Light. CityO fSilver 22:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Repent Amarillo Here are a few more reliable news sources that mention this group, though always in the context of Repent Amarillo.[57] [58] [59] It's certainly worth of a redirect and merge to the main article. First Light (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to You Me at Six. (non-admin closure) Goodvac (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Flint

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

Propose redirect to You Me At Six. No assertion of individual notability outside the (notable) band of which is he is a member. Mato (talk) 18:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to You Me At Six, as it had been previously. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to You Me At Six. fails WP:BAND for a stand-alone (no solo career). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:16, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - No notability asserted, independently or otherwise. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. -- WikHead (talk) 14:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Shii (tock) 05:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Buzz Magazine

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

WP:NN ezine. Findsources turns up next to nothing. No claim of importance - taking to AFD instead of WP:CSD#A7. Toddst1 (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—no notability demonstrated in any reliable source. N2e (talk) 01:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having insufficient coverage in independent third-party sources. If such sources are integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to You Me At Six. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 00:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Barnes (Musician)

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

Propose redirect to You Me At Six. No assertion of individual notability outside the (notable) band of which is he is a member. Mato (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I think a merge will probably be the best outcome, firstly, why not simply propose a merge in the article, and secondly, why bring it to AFD less than 40 minutes after the article was created while the (new) editor who created it is still working on it?--Michig (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Redirect" is not a "delete", so if even the nominator is not actually suggesting deletion ... Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to You Me At Six. fails WP:BAND for a stand-alone (no solo career). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. m.o.p 04:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DataExpress

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

I found zero significant coverage. Non-notable software. SL93 (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete - this page will be edited. Please provide some latitudes in time to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmarost (talk • contribs) 16:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is nothing preventing you from capturing that information (say, for example, putting it in your WP:User pages) for use at a later time. Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL, so notability needs to exist now and not in the future. If you can provide evidence of notability then please do so. -Rushyo ^Talk 13:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no assertion of WP:N and no significant coverage. -Rushyo ^Talk 13:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having insufficient coverage in independent third-party sources. If such sources are integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Allow the creator to userify if they like. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Football-Weekly

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

Contested Prod. Prod reason was "No evidence that this programme meets the notability guidelines." which remains the case, hence bringing this to AfD AllyD (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sure the top podcasts in the world deserve articles, but by the looks of things, this isn't one of them. PhnomPencil ^{talk contribs} 02:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to suggest notability. NapHit (talk) 11:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG -Rushyo ^Talk 13:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable podcast. SL93 (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having insufficient coverage in independent third-party sources. If such sources are integrated into the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Irene Notaras http://trade.mar.cx/AU791650

[2] ttp://www.ipmonitor.com.au/trademarks/case/1222669

[3] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Side_view_atomic_coffee.png

[4] ttp://www.flickr.com/photos/sorrentinacoffee/3622747430/in/set-72157624503516053

[5] ttp://whois.domaintools.com/sorrentinacoffee.com

[6] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Atomic_Coffee_Machine&direction=next&oldid=430483700

[7] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Atomic_Coffee_Machine&diff=420749819&oldid=420749565

[8] ttp://www.google.at/search?hl=de&q=atomic+shape&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=60l3012l0l3183l12l11l0l1l1l0l245l1930l0.10.1l12l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&biw=1600&bih=933&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]