Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 May 5

< 4 May	6 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Index of Clipperton Island-related articles

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

This is a list of extremely little use. It lists articles related to the remote Clipperton Island; however, one look at Category:Clipperton Island will show we only have two articles on Clipperton Island, and one of them is this one. There are no other directly relevant articles to link. Instead, this article links to such tangentially related topics as National Emblem of France, Western Hemisphere, Pacific Ocean and .fr. I understand this is meant to be one of a series of indexes (see Category:Indexes of articles by country) but in the case of Clipperton Island, we have so few articles on it there's entirely no need for it. Robofish (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, to be fair, it also links to the Clipperton Island category on Commons. But there are no useful links in this article that are not already in Clipperton Island. Robofish (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this weird padded list of links (Clipperton Island is linked a bunch of times through different piped names, same with France) should not be on the mainspace.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice to re-creation in the future - a stripped-down list of links (that is, a list of links without paragraphical article prose) may be useful, but this "index" doesn't have enough meat to qualify even as a stub. There doesn't appear to be enough coverage on this topic to warrant an index at this time. So, I suggest we delete it, without prejudice to building a new one if and when there is enough coverage to warrant it. The Transhumanist 09:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An index article serves as a navigation aid to readers to find articles all related to a specific topic. This index is just a bizarre collection of vaguely related links that have been padded out to give the appearance of substance. -- Whpq (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why are indices in articlespace instead of book or portalspace? 184.144.163.181 (talk) 05:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no need or justification for this index. The subject is so straightforward and so limited, not even a DAB page would be justified. --MelanieN (talk) 03:32, 12 May 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dario Piombino-Mascali

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

Does not seem to pass WP:ACADEMIC. Rd232 ^talk 23:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It would be very unusual for such a recent PhD to have gained notability as an academic, and I can see no sources that indicate any possibilty that the subject is an exception. As an aside I would advise the subject, if he wants to be considered a serious academic rather than just another self-promoter, not to respond to invitations from vanity publishers such as Marquis Who's Who to create an entry. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has failed to make any impact on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:Academic. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. He's received some press attention for Rosalia Lombardo but I think he fails WP:BIO1E in this respect, and there's not a lot of point in redirecting his article to hers. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 19:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure - I did several searches online, and he has been noted in lots of websites, but only has four scholar Ghits. I've asked User:DGG for his opinion. Bearian (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rosalia Lombardo, where he is covered adequately. Specialist in a narrow speciality, but not yet established as an authority. The strongest evidence is his co-authorship of the "Italy" chapter in The Routledge Handbook of Archaeological Human Remains and Legislation, but it's a 2011 book and its too soon to see if it will be a standard work. None of the arguments here give a reason against redirection, so, a/c/ WP:BEFORE, that would be the preferred way to go. DGG ( talk ) 18:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with David Eppstein. He got a bit of publicity (notably in National Geographic [1]) in connection with the Sleeping Beauty child, but he is really peripheral to her story, so a redirect is not indicated. Let him make his name academically, and create an article someday when he can pass the Google Scholar test. --MelanieN (talk) 04:12, 12 May 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NK Borac Banovci

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

Article about a football club that does not show how it meets WP:ORG. Presently not listed at List of football clubs in Croatia and no indication that this team plays in any of the professional leagues in that country (claims to play in "County League" which isn't given on said list either). Non-English sources may exist, but I can't find anything to show notability. Note: I had tagged this for speedy A7, but improvements to the article seem to preclude that. Kinu ^t/_c 23:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4. County leauge (4 županijska liga) is the lowest league in Croatian football leuge. The first source is site which deals with events in these leagues. Another source is the official website of Municipality of Nijemci that talks about all the clubs from Municipality. Also, as far as I understand, is not necessary that the article has the highest importance that it should not delete according to the rules of Wikipedia that were attached to the proposal for delete. So that even a weaker team, which does not play in top leagues, if someone is at something interesting, could get an article on Wikipedia.

Finally, the article is still in its initial phase and of course it does not provide much information. Over time it can be improved and developed further (it is one of the best things on Wikipedia). I hope my statement will not be judged as aggressive, I mean it could be another solid article. Thank you for your time! User:MirkoS18 —Preceding undated comment added 23:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Amateur village club, with no evidence of notability. The article was tagged for speedy deletion, but the tag was removed without any explanation. In my opinion it does qualify for speedy deletion (under WP:CSD#A7), but since this discussion has been started I am willing to let it go its course, at least for a while, to see if anyone can provide any justification for keeping. (Note: Kinu says "no indication that this team plays in any of the professional leagues". This is not surprising, since the article states that the club is amateur: "Borac footballers take participation as volunteer and for their efforts do not receive financial benefits".) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I haven't yet checked for sources indicating notability, so won't provide a bolded "keep" or "delete", but would like to correct the implication made by the nominator and JamesBWatson that a club has to be professional to be notable. There is no such requirement. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see where I implied that. I said "Amateur village club, with no evidence of notability": I did not say "Amateur club, and therefore not notable". In most cases an amateur village club is not notable, but there certainly are exceptions. However, in this case there is no evidence that the club is notable, which is what I said: "with no evidence of notability". That is not by any stretch of the imagination the same as saying that an amateur club can never be notable, but mentioning that it is an amateur village club is relevant, because it makes it clear that there cannot be a presumption of notability, and that clear evidence is necessary. (My other comment was just an attempt to clarify a point made by Kinu, not part of my reason for deletion, which is why I parenthesised it.) JamesBWatson (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentTag for speedy deletion was removed because of this: Tag was added because the article did not contain any sources, tag was removed after sources was added. As the article wrote, the club plays in 4. County leauge (4 županijska liga) which is an integral part of the Croatian football league. Although the players are playing as volunteer, some of them continue to play in major clubs in Croatia or Serbia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.147.104.90 (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just saw that I was wrong all the time, Borac does not compete in the fourth but in the third county leauge (you could see that on croatian Wikipedia) http://hr.wikipedia.org/wiki/NK_Borac_Banovci . I will correct it.

User:MirkoS18

Based on Croatian football league system, am I correct in assuming that the third county league is the 7th level of football in the Croatian system? --Kinu ^t/_c 21:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are right. The third county leauge is the 7th level of football in the Croatian system of the professional leagues.User:MirkoS18 —Preceding undated comment added 22:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete 1. Fails to meet football-specific guidelines set at WP:FOOTYN - the club never appeared in the Croatian Cup and never competed in any national-level league competition (which would be one of the top two Croatian levels). FYI the top level is fully professional while the second and third level are semi-pro. Everything below that is considered amateur, and Borac Banovci is in the 7th level. 2. Also fails WP:GNG - absolutely no significant coverage in secondary sources such as any of the five Croatian national dailies. Timbouctou (talk) 02:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep1.The article contains independent outside sources (On the official website of the Municipality which is an integral part of the Croatian state organization, and also on the site that specifically deals with issues related to third county leagues). The club competes in one of the Croatian Leagues (Although it is only the seventh in a row). Article with basic information about the club and also gives details about club's history, organisation. Notability is not the same as fame, this means that the article about the club does not must appear in any of five Croatian national dailies. There is one more source that I will add now in article http://www.tntl.hr/casopis/tintl_5.pdf . On 23. page is text obout matches in third county leagues (4 matches including match NK Borac Banovci), The article contains the names of the players, place were match was, the result, the situation on a table.--161.53.179.226 (talk) 12:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep It would be great to make articles about other clubs in third county leauge. So than we will had better covered the entire Croatian football league--161.53.179.232 (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it would be "good" to do so, but the issue under discussion is whether this article satisfies Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. If you wish to argue that those criteria should be broadened, then you are very welcome to do so, but this is not the place to do it, as this deletion discussion will be decided on the basis of the current criteria. On a separate issue, are you (the editor saying "keep" from 161.53.179.232) the same person who said "keep" above from 161.53.179.226? Both the very similar IP addresses (both assigned to the same organisation) and your similar editing history strongly suggest that you may be. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - club doesn't compete at a sufficient level to be considered notable. Giant Snowman 16:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The club plays well below the level where there would be a presumption of notability per WP:FOOTYN, and I can see no independent reliable sources with significant coverage in the article, in this discussion, or in my own searches. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no indication of significant coverage, meaning the club fails WP:GNG, and the club does play at a high enough level to be presumed notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. Argyle 4 Life^talk 10:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article does not have enough references, so it fails GNG. I did tag it for speedy deletion, per A7, but it got Afd. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 11:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keepThe theme is solidly covered. The article provides important historical and other information about the club so it is (with sports), interesting also from historical aspect. That club is not famous means that it should be classified as low on the scale of importance in categories such as sport or Croatia. The article is better than many that I encountered on Wikipedia. By the way, I think that the references are satisfactory. It should be well thought out, and not rush with deletion because it would be a shame because of destroyed an source of interesting knowledge.--Samuel VI (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately all of that has little relation either to Wikipedia's inclusion criteria or to the reasons given above for deletion. However "solidly" the "theme" is covered, if the subject does not satisfy the notability guidelines then it does not qualify for an article. "The article is better than many that I encountered on Wikipedia" is not a reason for keeping it: see WP:OTHERSTUFF to see why. Finally, you may well see it as a "source of interesting knowledge", but unless it is a source of knowledge about a notable subject then that is irrelevant, and amounts to no more than saying that you personally like it. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hello people! I think it's pretty clear that this my article will be deleted. Of course I am not so happy because of that, but I think I can offer a compromise solution. I think it would be good to copy this article, to shorten it a bit, and then add into article Šidski Banovci. I hope you accept my "greenness" in editing Wikipedia as an excuse. Thank you for your patience and calmness.--MirkoS18 (talk) 20:24, 9 May 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Narvy

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

Non-notable actor has never done anything other than Power Rangers. Consider a redirect. Full article sourced to imbd (when sources exists). Damiens.rf 21:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure how having only a single, relatively well-known role is relevant to notability. A Google News search produces 42 results. JPG-GR (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Was a regular cast member on a notable TV series and appeared in the theatrically-released movies based on said series; sounds like it meets WP:ENTERTAINER to me.SPNic (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject clearly passes WP:ENTERTAINER. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above, but definitely needs more sources. Anoldtreeok (talk) 08:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable, but needs a lot more sources. Doh5678 Talk 16:29, 12 May 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Gardner (film producer)

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

No evidence of notabilty... nothing on Google apart from this article and no references at all let alone reliable third party references. Teapotgeorge^Talk 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been deleted and recreated 8 times before.http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Gardner_%28Director%29&redirect=no&action=edit&redlink=1Teapotgeorge^Talk 21:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 14 year old film maker with no coverage in reliable sources and stuff that has been placed on youtube. -- Whpq (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum -- I forgot to mention that the strongest claim for notability (not that it is particularly strong) is that he "won the 2011 Keswick Film Festival with his Stop motion Animation short Larry and Steve" which I cannot verify. Assuming this is the festival in question, this would appear to be a false claim as there is no mention of his film in either the open or under 18 category for short films. -- Whpq (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well i was not completeley honest, i have not researched the winning entry of Larry and Steve propaly and i have checked on the keswick film festival website and it does not show, sorry for the mistake, but i have viewed the video and he has sent the video to aardman animations, that i can confirm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggy2746 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - So which "local" film festival was it then? Since you haven't researched it, how do you know? -- Whpq (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My father was a judge there, he rated it 3/5. It was the Longton Film Festival, he retired there 6 months ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggy2746 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone and met Thomas Gardner, he was in new zealand working on a small film with peter jackson, he is a real nice bloke. His stop motion is very good and all i'm saying is, give the page a chance, i mean if its been made 8 times, he must be well known, otherwise people wouldn't make it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovetomg (talk • contribs) 20:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is users only edit on Wikipedia.Teapotgeorge^Talk 21:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete and salt "i mean if its been made 8 times, he must be well known" - no. It means he and his school mates are persistent and won't quit posting this rubbish. Lads, believe me. You are NOT going to get this article to stay here. We might give something a chance if it came really close to the notability standards. This doesn't, and no related article that I've seen did either. "Gone and met" him - yeh. On your way to school. 3/5 at the Longton Film Festival? 3/5 at Cannes may be something of note. Which Longton? Or should that be Longtown? Any evidence apart from your dad (who only gave your mate 3/5? Shame on him!)? Be warned - continual adding of inappropriate pages can lead to blocking. Attempts to beat blocking in the course of vandalism can lead to banning. Telling lies doesn't do your case any good either. In New Zealand and "working on a small film with peter jackson" - is that the Peter Jackson of LOTR, or the one who videos weddings as a sideline to his computer repair business? "His stop motion is very good" - could be true. We've no evidence either way. But being good isn't enough without achievement and coverage in independent sources. You have to be very, very good to get anywhere beyond self-publishing on YouTube - and you have to have luck. There's few openings in the UK at present. When Thomas has actually achieved something worth noting (and which is provable independently to fit our standards), and assuming you all haven't been blocked, try then. That won't be for 10 years, and after a lot of training. And luck. Remember that Wikipedia is free, but it isn't free webspace. Stick to MySpace, Facebook and such for now. Peridon (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was Peter Jackson from LOTR and I'm not a friend of his, just an admirer of his short films, which you will eventually say where did you see them, it was Longton not longtown and that bit when you said from my comment gone and met him, there was no need to make fun of it by saying on your way to school, I'm 24 for fuck sake. And when I met him and I did meet him, he said that he doesn't like his video on youtube because he never really wanted it published.

Please sign your posts with~~~~. As I asked above - which Longton? Can you supply a reference for the festival? If you are 24, my apologies. I was assuming that you were at school like Thomas presumably is. If he is as notable as you claim, there will be evidence for it outside of your opinion - which doesn't count as you are (so far as we can tell) not a reliable source according to WP:RS. Give us the evidence and make us look daft. Peridon (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Considering the repeated re-creation of the article, Salt as well. Edward321 (talk) 00:08, 11 May 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 Battle of the Little Bighorn#Aftermath. Arguably, the article content could be deleted under criterion A10; I've left the history intact. Either way, there's no need for a new article, particularly one with the concerns listed below, when there's already an article in very good condition on the event. —C.Fred (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy of the Battle of Little Big Horn

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

Essay with borderline POV-bait title. delete - UtherSRG (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC) UtherSRG (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: Reads like a school essay. Missing Sourcing. Hasteur (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect(soft) to Battle of the Little Bighorn#Aftermath, don't think we need a separate article, especially when this one is unsourced, and really doesn't provide substantial additional coverage. Monty ₈₄₅ 20:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy A7 - UtherSRG (talk) 12:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sarthak mohapatra

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

Looks like non-notable and self-promotion. -delete - UtherSRG (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC) UtherSRG (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe this was copied from another website due to the formatting errors and the use of "Here we mention a few of the awards he was received in instrumental competitions…" This boy may be talented but I do not see the notability about him.-- CrossTempleJay talk 21:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant autobio of non-notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 06:46, 6 May 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red and Black Ribbon

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

No reliable third party sources support notability. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 22:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to atheism. Would provide more context to that article. CycloneGU (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't see anything worth merging. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 05:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of awareness ribbons. MKFI (talk) 08:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of awareness ribbons. Instead of starting this AfD, the nom should have been bold and redirected it to the said article. --Reference Desker (talk) 05:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and no redirect. Is there even the faintest hint of actual awareness about this ribbon? I can't even find a single press mention. -- Whpq (talk) 13:43, 3 May 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, Baseball Watcher 20:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Should be added to the article on List of awareness ribbons. CrossTempleJay talk 21:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is already listed. MKFI (talk) 19:24, 6 May 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. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Bryna

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

Duplicate recreated not notable singer - not a single notable charted song - the album that is added was also just deleted at AFD - It didn't chart at all. [Trying to Be Me - Off2riorob (talk) 20:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Patently obvious that the nominator did not read the article and is assuming bad faith — when I removed the A10 and explained to him that it didn't apply, he moved straight to AFD. The last version was deleted mainly because it was a copyvio, and those who !voted "delete" obviously didn't look hard enough for sources. Whether or not she charted is immaterial; the presence of multiple, third party sources (including two reputable reviews of the album and plenty of articles from Country Standard Time) should easily be enough for both WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The previous article was properly deleted as an unsalvageable combination of copyvio text and heavy-duty spam. As I noted at the prior AFD, the subject appeared to be notable, satisfying the GNG, and TPH's overhaul has resolved the problems cited in the AFD. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Digging up a few trivial reports and bloating a not notable singers life story when they haven't ever charted falsely represents them to the reader. Off2riorob (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What? It's possible to be notable and not have a charted single or album. I fail to see how this article is "bloating" or how the sources are "trivial". You're clearly disrupting to make a WP:POINT, and judging from your talk page, this isn't the first time. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can attack me I care less. The single is not notable and claiming our lowest level of GNG because its the only hurdle she might scrape over is a backward step from the recent deletion. Off2riorob (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me how an article with 12 sources is a "backward step" from a complete copyvio with no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, everybody. I think she clearly meets the GNG through newspaper coverage [2] and things like a New York magazine miniprofile [3], but there's nothing wrong with establishing notability strictly through the music press. Charting is significant because we infer coverage exists for a charting performer; it's not necessary in and of itself. The Velvet Underground were notable long before they charted, as were Patti Smith and the CBGBs crowd. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:GNG/criterion 1 of WP:BAND. I see no reason to delete. Charting is an indication of notability, but merely one of many; It does not follow that not charting is an indication of a lack of notability. Charts measure commercial success, and not every musician is purely business-focused - many critically-acclaimed artists with plenty of coverage have had little or no chart success..--Michig (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Charts or no charts, the singer has been covered in multiple, independent reliable sources as listed in the article itself and in the additional refs provided by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz above, which satisfies the requirements of the general notability guideline. 28bytes (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If your a singer and your music isn't notable and you have to gain entry through a few comments and promo articles its a sad song indeed. WP:GNG Off2riorob (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that in most cases, a release on a notable label is sufficient even if the album doesn't chart. It is possible for a musician to be notable despite never charting an album; you may believe otherwise, but WP:BAND makes it pretty obvious that a charted single isn't 100% necessary, just reliable third party sources. WP:GNG trumps WP:BAND every time, and it's obvious she meets the former even if you don't think she meets the latter. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you should take that up with the independent reliable sources who insist on generating third-party coverage of her despite her non-chartingness. 28bytes (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, Nick Drake never charted in his lifetime, but he received significant critical coverage and was notably influential by the time of his death (a sad song indeed, but for a different reason). The early history of the ECM jazz label is a litany of notable, widely reviewed music that never charted. Libraries and bookstores are full of notable books that never approach the best-seller lists. Commercial success is sufficient to establish notability, but not necessary. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to compare notability levels here to Nick Drake - The idea that this subject will ever be notably influential is a stretch of imagination. If she ever becomes that then I will vote Keep myself. Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep meets WP:MUSIC. Dragquennom (talk) 20:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has received significant coverage in reliable sources. /ƒETCH COMMS / 22:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Why would anyone even bother trying to AFD something with this many reliable sources clearly proving notability anyway? Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 01:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1. In addition to the sources that TenPoundHammer has found, there are others such as this article in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, this one in the Herald & Review, and this review in PopMatters. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. TPH clearly is to be commended for the work he has done with this article. Notability has sufficiently been established in accordance with the general notability guidelines. Salute to TPH! Cind.amuse 03:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Kinda surprised the 1st close was delete.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have to keep - While the Patriot-Legder (trust me, I used to live in Quincy) is the kind of newspaper the winos use to wrap their bottles with, and all the other sources are from some glorified country music blog, this is what scrapes by for WP:NMUSIC these days. A bit of WP:HOTTIE doesn't hurt either. Tarc (talk) 04:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note - this although a well supported keep discussion and I accept the comments and the consensus completely I made the nomination in good faith and still personally hold the position for which I nominated her - sayiing that - I withdraw the nomination allowing it to be closed as a speedy keep or as the closer decides - Off2riorob (talk) 11:31, 6 May 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Constantine Alexios of Greece and Denmark

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

To quote from the only source for this BLP article: "This is my genealogy page with royal and noble family trees, including lists of rulers of many European countries. [...] Four photos of my son (part 22)". Anyone who doesn't see the problem, see WP:BLPSPS.

The self-published source could easily be replaced by a reliable source, as it doesn't say more than the one line in Debrett's does ("1c HRH Prince CONSTANTINE Alexios of Greece and Denmark, b 29 Oct 1998"). But that's rather pointless, as a single line like this is simply not the basis for notability, or for an article. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to condense information to make it easily digestible, not to make huge pseudo-articles out of basically nothing. The impressive list of godparents (this crowd must have scared the little child like hell) wouldn't help with the notability problem either, even if there were a source for it.

More formally, let me repeat what I said (uncontradicted) about one of his brothers:

He would never get an entry in Britannica or anything like it. At his age he would never even get a separate page in any genealogical work. He completely and utterly fails WP:GNG, and the other notability guidelines are just approximations to GNG whose purpose it is to avoid repetitive discussions in borderline cases. Therefore a notability guideline saying that second generation descendants of kings are automatically notable would be invalid. But it so happens that there is no such specific notability guideline. Let's check the (potentially) applicable parts of WP:BIO:

WP:BASIC: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources [...]." But: "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." And this is explained further: "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing". — Here we only have a one-line directory entry, blown up to an article for no good reason. This is similar to the case of a film, which is not notable just because it appears in IMDB. Note that this is the main test. The below "additional criteria" are just for fine-tuning this and in some cases allow redirects for non-notable people.
WP:ANYBIO: No well-known or significant award or honour, no widely recognised contribution to a field.
WP:POLITICIAN: Arguably he is a politician because some people fantasize he might inherit the currently nonexistent office of a Greek king at some point. But he has not (1) held any office, is not (2) a major local political figure who received significant press coverage, and in a sense point 3 applies: "Just being [...] an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability [...]". His situation is analogous to that of a non-notable candidate for the presidency of a republic. Just being on the ballot is not enough.
WP:BIO#Invalid criteria: "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A)"
WP:BIO#Family: "Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person"

To all this I could add that he is notable only for one event: his birth. So even if he were otherwise a borderline case, which he isn't, he would at most fall under WP:BLP1E. Hans Adler 20:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I supported the deletion of his siblings but Prince Constantine is the future head of the Greek Royal House, his attendance at the wedding of the Duke of Cambridge was recorded on the official guestlist published while many people were missing, so has some notability in my opinion. - dwc lr (talk) 21:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep As dwc lr said. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable by standing in direct line of succession to the throne of Greece. Whilst I do not think he stands a cat in hell's chance of taking the throne, the family attracts continuing attention. Merging to a single article for the family might be an option, but keep for now. 'Not inherited' does not work for hereditary positions! --AJHingston (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above keep votes with no respect of policy and of human decency, which forbids pseudo-biographies of children whose appearance in reliable sources is restricted to utterly trivial coverage in Debrett's are obviously related to this. I have notified the BLP noticeboard, see WP:BLP#Pseudo-biography of a non-notable twelve-year-old "prince". Hans Adler 23:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

News articles on his christening was actually published in a number of newspapers (Belfast News Letter, The Scotsman, The Sun). I don’t think that’s something that is done for ‘non notable’ people personally. - dwc lr (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The press is going to report on all sorts of things related to people like Constantine, but that doesn't make them notable. As an extreme example in illustration of my point, if the press reported that Constantine coughed without covering his mouth, would that constitute notability? At this point, his only notability is derivative.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think stories about his education, christening and so on are notable. He is the future head of the Greek Royal Family it’s easier to add content as it becomes available as opposed to starting from scratch a few years from now scrambling around looking for information. - dwc lr (talk) 02:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

″He is the future head of the Greek Royal Family″. No he isn't. Greece doesn't have a Royal family. Greece is a parliamentary republic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That’s why I didn’t say he would be 'King of the Hellenes'. He will however be heir to the abolished throne, head of the (Former) Royal Family, Royal House, a notable position. - dwc lr (talk) 02:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statistically speaking, as a Brit, of Brit"ish" stock (i.e. the usual mongrel anglo-saxon/celtic/other north western European and no doubt elsewhere too ancestry) , and not a Catholic, I'd be surprised if I wasn't the somethingth (at a guess 30-millionth or thereabouts) in line to the throne of the UK, which has the (dubious) merit of still existing. That doesn't make me notable, as I have ***-all chance of becoming King. How exactly does being 'heir' to an imaginary throne make this poor sproggit more notable than me? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are not in line of succession to the British throne, and Prince Constantine will head a deposed Royal dynasty, a position of notability. Pretty much every head of a deposed Royal House has an article List of current pretenders. - dwc lr (talk) 03:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a serious problem, as many of these BLP-related articles are unsourced or badly sourced, and some are unstable or have in the past been used by hoaxsters who created a fake royal ancestry for themselves. Hans Adler 09:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, per nominator. And regarding him "standing in direct line of succession to the throne of Greece", since the throne does not exist, he cannot stand in line for it. Creating halfbaked articles about minors supposedly in line to non-existent thrones based on nothing other than an imaginary 'hereditary position' clearly does come under 'not inherited', in the most obvious sense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator that his only claim to notability is his family. Therefore, his birth can be noted in other articles and has already been noted, for example, in Pavlos, Crown Prince of Greece, his father. A standalone article for him at this point makes no sense. If he becomes notable in his own right later, than an article can be created for him.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I think Hans is being a bit melodramatic with his appeal to human decency, since Prince Constantine Alexios has no scandals, the article is unlikely to see much vandalism, we have no indication that this family would prefer not to be written about, etc. I would also argue to keep articles about similarly situated people who are parts of an extant monarchy. However, I am swayed by the argument that since Greece is no longer a monarchy (and seems unlikely at this juncture to return to monarchy) this family is now more in the situation of celebrities, former politicians, etc., such that notability is not inherited. (One of the rare cases where notability actually is inherited is in actual royal families. But this isn't actually a royal family anymore.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could argue he is a member of the Danish Royal Family, a reigning family. - dwc lr (talk) 03:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment Yep appeals to common decency are very much melodramatic around here. John lilburne (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per dwc lr. And it can't just be argued that he is a member of the Danish Royal Family -- he is a member of that family, although not in line to its throne (but then, neither is any queen consort in line to the throne of the royal family to which she belongs). FactStraight (talk) 03:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no independent coverage in reliable sources, no grounds for extra coverage here (besides a mention somewhere in an article about his family or parents). Let's have an article about him if and when he is old enough to do something notable himself, or perhaps if and when he actually takes that magical position as "head" of his house. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AndyTheGrump. Rubywine (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Such entries are pretty stupid. A 12yo child whose only claim to notability lies in the imaginations of others, ought not to be in the book. John lilburne (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A minor who is not covered in reliable sources due to lack of notability does not become an adequate subject for a Wikipedia entry simply because he's a prince. Per nominator and everyone else. Delete, delete, delete.Griswaldo (talk) 12:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This doesn't meet the notability threshold at the present time, and may never actually meet it - I have my doubts as to whether him as a grown-up will make the cut, but at this age he'd have to outwit some bad guys or something. Dahn (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per AndyTheGrump ukexpat (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have notability criteria and he does not meet them. Discussion about whether he might one day merit an article is irrelevant. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Constantine is the third most important person in the Greek monarchist movement. It's POV to maintain that we can have dozens of articles about democratically elected Greek politicians, but not articles about the most important individuals in the monarchist movement. This is part of an ongoing anti-"royalty cruft" movement on Wikipedia. I did not vote on the deletion requests for Constantine's younger brothers, but this one is different. Noel S McFerran (talk) 01:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: how significant is the "Greek monarchist movement"? Does it have popular support? Is it regularly discussed in the mainstream Greek media? Admittedly, a Google search in not the ideal way to find out, but its first find is to FaceBook: [4] 678 members... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And further to this is he really "the third most important person in the Greek monarchist movement"? I'm surprised that they let 12-year-olds join. He might very well be the third most important person to the monarchists, but lacking evidence that they are notable, he isn't either. Leave the poor kid alone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did it occur to you that when editors who normally have better things to do start cleaning up royalty cruft, it might have something to do with the excess of unsourced or poorly sourced BLP articles full of non-noteworthy trivia? Wikipedia is not a playground for royalty dreamers and nobility nosers. It's an encyclopedia. For royalty precisely the same rule as for Pokémon holds: If it's notable, it goes in. If it isn't, it doesn't. Wikipedia is not a substitute for the reliable sources that don't do in-depth reports on the tiniest details of your personal hobby. It's just an accident that the closed season for royalty articles here at Wikipedia lasted a few years longer than that for Pokémon. Hans Adler 06:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as birth alone isn't notable enough, when one isn't royalty. GoodDay (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must of missed the news that Denmark became a republic. - dwc lr (talk) 03:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is Prince Constantine in line for the throne of Denmark? Our article on the present Queen, Margrethe II of Denmark, doesn't seem to suggest so. Does it need correcting? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Prince Michael of Kent is not in line to the British throne, but he is still a member of the Royal Family. - dwc lr (talk) 03:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(res to DWC), the Danish succession is limited to Christian X's descendants. GoodDay (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And has nothing to do with membership of the royal family, not only is he future head of the Royal Family of Greece he is also a Prince of Denmark and a member of the Danish Royal Family, just without succession rights. - dwc lr (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's not in the Danish line of succession, therefore he's not a royal. He's not gonna be the head of the Royal Family of Greece, as there hasn't been a Royal Family of Greece since 1973. GoodDay (talk) 04:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What nonsense. So you are saying Prince Michael of Kent and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge are not royal because neither of them is in line to the British throne either. Greek Royal Family is still called as such even if its non reigning. - dwc lr (talk) 13:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The British Royal Family exists, the Greek Royal Family does not. I'm not changing my stance on this AfD. GoodDay (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is a Prince of Denmark and member of the Danish Royal Family, does that exist? - dwc lr (talk) 13:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, I'm not changing my stance. IMHO, only the 'pretenders' themselves, who were once monarchs, deserve an article. GoodDay (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is longstanding practice here - with lots of precedents - that royalty are in a sense always notable. Don't ask me to cite a specific policy, because there isn't one. But at past AfDs, we have always kept real royalty as well as pretenders who have some reasonable claim to get back their realms. Greece is perhaps the epitome of such a royal family. The subject is third in line. That's been good enough before. GoodDay's stance has not been the past consensus. If this is deleted, it will open a whole can of worms for further mischief. If the consensus has changed, we need more than a dozen participants to overturn hard-fought consensus. Only once before has HM Jimbo Wales inserted himself in a desire to change consensus, and that was a not pretty scene. I lost that fight, but at least I kept my good reputation. Bearian (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"We have always had consensus to keep political articles on non-notable 12-year-olds" is not a good keep rationale, and neither is your unrealistic optimism to get one of the European monarchies back. Hans Adler 00:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't too great either. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 09:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Bearian. Edward321 (talk) 00:18, 11 May 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jafer Ahmad Summer Institute of Business

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

Utterly non-notable school, per this search only Google hits are at Wikipedia. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The notability of this article is questionable. Expansion of the article may or may not help but in its current state it looks a poor article-- CrossTempleJay talk 21:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails verifiability. For an institute of business, it is surprising that I am unable to find its web site. There is also no coverage in reliable sources. Not even passing mentions. There is no coverage in even unreliable sources. Not even a listing in the Yellow Pages. There is absolutely no evidence this even exists! -- Whpq (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Whpq. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 19:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE and SALT. postdlf (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gianna Distenca (actress)

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

Non-notable actress. Article previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gianna Distenca and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gianna Distenca (2). Giant Snowman 19:35, 5 May 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misspixels

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

I declined to speedy delete this as notability is somewhat claimed in the article text, but a search has not produced any reliable sources which can verify this content or indicate the notability of this person. The honor from Wired magazine is just a reader-submitted photo contest that was judged by who got the most votes on the website, not a competition between professional artists. This individual did not even win the contest but was in the top 15, and the coverage of it [5] does not contain a single word of description of this person. The Museum of Modern Art website does not appear to have any information on MissPixels despite the claims in this article. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Some coverage exists in community [6] newspapers. The MOMA claim, if read carefully, will reveal that it was an image released through social networking which is a lot different than the work being part of an exhibit or part of the MOMA collection. Note that the first community paper link makes this clear that it was part of a web showcase. -- Whpq (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence the subject satisfies the general notability guideline. I nominated this article to be speedied because the claims of notability didn't seem plausible: they appear massaged in order to confer the appearance of notability where there isn't any. The article is also spam. -- Rrburke (talk) 19:57, 8 May 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

193 Jarry

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

Non notable bus route. No indication of where the coverage required by WP:GNG is given or available on searching Nuttah (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why its up for deletion???? Alexcaban (talk) 04:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator said that the article you created doesn't show WP:NOTABILITY in terms of Wikipedia standards of notability required for keeping an article around. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: is there a reason this particular article has been nominated out of the members of Category:Montreal bus routes? --Kinu ^t/_c 21:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply It was what 'random article' bought up. If there are other articles in the category that lack any evidence as to how they meet WP:GNG then feel free to treat them as you see fit. Nuttah (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Various searches brought up several potentially useful news hist, such as [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] and [12]. Trouble is, all but the first are in French, and I can't tell if any of them give significant coverage to the route. Perhaps there's more potential for an article about the 10 minutes max network as a whole? Alzarian16 (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of them are significant mentions of 193. One of them said the criminal fled on the bus, another one said the bus driver worked the route, etc. 10 minute max network is just a bunch of bus routes where the number of buses were increased so that the interval between buses was reduced to a maximum of 10 minutes between them. 65.93.12.8 (talk) 05:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a random nomination by an infrequent editor - a drive-by tagging. If you are sincere please look at all STM related articles in their entirety. Be more constructive and contribute to something like the List of bus routes in Portsmouth area. Martin Morin (talk) 17:08, 2 May 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge: Fails to meet GNG. An article similar to List of bus routes in Portsmouth area except for the STM seems reasonable, and all STM routes should be merged into it. DigitalC (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An omnibus list of bus routes would be perfectly acceptable content (still kind of ridiculous, selon moi, but prior consensus allows it.) However, as WP:OUTCOMES#Buses already points out, separate articles about individual bus routes pretty much fail WP:GNG. Delete/merge. Bearcat (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then WP:OUTCOMES#Buses is wrong, since many bus route articles have survived AfD and one even has GA status. "Rarely notable" is not the same as "always non-notable". Alzarian16 (talk) 09:17, 12 May 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jigsaw Squirting

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

Non-notable product, cannot find evidence of meeting WP:GNG. Kinu ^t/_c 18:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nonnotable product. Edison (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
maintain In the document's potential growth potential. --174.121.226.33 (talk) 10:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: User is blocked. OSborn^arf_contribs. 23:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably shouldn't even be up for AfD but just CSDed under A7 for lack of indication of importance. It's barely in English, cites no sources and is totally non-notable: it's a dildo attached to a ~~power drill~~ jigsaw. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ——Tom Morris (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per Tom Morris. —Tim Pierce (talk) 12:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
maintain A great article about women's erogenous zones to. --46.243.9.247 (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: User is blocked. OSborn^arf_contribs. 23:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fairly unclear article about a product for which it fails to establish any notability. OSborn^arf_contribs. 23:45, 7 May 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ant farm episode list

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

Episode list for TV series scheduled for 6 months time. No episode listed and only reference does not mention the series. Recreate when there are some episodes to list - this is just a placeholder. noq (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No real content and misnamed (the list eventually should exist (unless the series is cancelled prematurely) at List of ANT Farm episodes, which is currently a redirect to ANT Farm). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Extremely poor quality, improperly laid out, misnamed article. The references in the article don't even support the article. The article might represent a valid redirect to List of ANT Farm episodes when the series actually airs, but there doesn't seem any point redirecting it while there are no episodes, as it should redirect now to A.N.T. Farm. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only "source" does not mention the show. No content. Much like the creator's other article, Suite Life on Air, the content is either completely made up or taken from a forum posting somewhere where someone else made it up. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:15, 7 May 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Sampson

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

Blatant autobiography. Is she notable? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I read through the article and saw that there were multiple issues with it. I am not sure about deleting it but one thing I am sure of is that the article has to be restructured and expanded. So I have left a comment on the article talk page.-- CrossTempleJay talk 19:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No she isn't. Lots of hits with scholar and books, but it's not the same one - frankieMR (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here to fulfill WP:BK or WP:AUTHOR. Qworty (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real claim to notability, the award mentioned is just an undergraduate award at the University of Missouri. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. Usual Caveats apply, however. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:59, 10 May 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian cities with large Chinese populations

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

List fails (in my opinion) WP:NOT#STATS. I see no indication of why this would warrant a stand-alone article, and at the least would think it would warrant deletion after merging into Chinese Canadian. Before people go pointing at List of U.S. cities with significant Chinese American populations (or other similar "List of X cities with large Y populations" articles) saying that if it exists this article should, I'm not completely convinced that they would warrant an article either, but I'm not going to be the one to nominate them for deletion. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 17:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

So... which city has the most large Chinese?—RJH (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merging to Chinese Canadian is not at all a bad idea. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Merge if the statistics can be sourced, otherwise delete. What defines a "large" percentage of the population anyway? 1.8% doesn't seem large to me. DigitalC (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete preferred, but merge acceptable, for perhaps top three. Quick check of a couple of the cities indicated that the info was available on the city wiki article, but with better context. I also agree that stand-alone articles on List of X Cities with large Y populations is not a good direction to go. Gierszep (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Tavlin

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

There are a couple of minor ghits for this "playwright, screenwriter, and producer", but that's about it. His IMDb credits are too sparse. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable bio. Keb25 (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can only find trivial mentions of him in reliable sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monolith Tour

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

Per WP:CONCERT, non-notable tours of notable bands don't deserve articles. Also, this fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Sadads (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:CONCERT and WP:GNG. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 17:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rock In A Hard Place Tour

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

Per WP:CONCERT, non-notable tours of notable bands don't deserve articles. Also, this fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Going by my (admittedly limited) knowledge of Aerosmith history, there was nothing notable about this tour, and the article itself fails to give any explanation of notability. Indeed, the article is basically just a listing of stops on the tour, which is a great resource for a fan site, but inappropriate for Wikipedia.--Martin IIIa (talk) 22:57, 5 May 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Wagner (painter)

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

Very tricky sourcing problem, unable to find reliable secondary sources which provide coverage of this Czech artist, not to be confused with 19th century and earlier-20th century artists, such as the 1901-born sculptor [13] of the same name. There are some non-trivial claims that certainly go towards notability if they can be verified, but at present this is a long-term unreferenced BLP. joe decker ^{talk to me} 17:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Withdrawn (see below) --joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added an Interwiki to the Czech equivalent page, which in turn led to the National Library database where the Louis Mossot authored catalogue could perhaps go some way to confirming notability. But not finding much else. AllyD (talk) 20:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IOn the assumption that the article was written in good faith by a one-article editor who knew something about the artist, I googled:"josef wagner" Holešovice. (since the article states that he was known for work portraying this city with a unique name) the search [14] produced 357 very persuasive hits. Mostly in Czech, but, just scanning the first page, also an intervidw on a French radio program. Keep and hope for improvement.I.Casaubon (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw as nom -- Nice job adding those sources, the French source in particular is substantial, bravo! --joe decker ^{talk to me} 20:32, 10 May 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie J. Anderson

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

Appears to fail both WP:Academic and WP:Creative. While she may become notable in the future, it doesn't appear she is there yet. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie J. Anderson deserves notable mention as a frequent and emerging voice in the independent comic publishing scene. She is an active (and influential) voice in the comics community, and belongs to writers groups featuring such influential artists as Matt Madden. She is a major contributor (editor/artist) to one of the foremost journals of experimental fiction (Quarter After Eight) and her poetry has appeared in a number of respectable publications. I have found her to be an influence, and I believe she merits a mention on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkapoet (talk • contribs) 00:09, 6 May 2011— Jkapoet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I searched Google news archive and the web for any sources that would indicate some notibility for her, but while some of the factual data can be verified this way I found nothing that would pass WP:GNG. As someone who only just received a masters degree WP:PROF is out of the question. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to satisfy WP:AUTHOR, WP:BK, or WP:CREATIVE. Qworty (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete and redirect to Pakistan and state terrorism, because the article is an copyvio, for one. But also for a number of other reasons, including WP:CFORK. NW (Talk) 20:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inter-Services Intelligence role in terrorism

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

This is an inherent POV fork. We could rename it and improve the content, but then there would be substantial overlap with content elsewhere. There's not enough content of value to bother with a merge. It's an unlikely search term. Hence, a merge/redirect is unnecessary. Deletion is the best solution. Rob (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Rob (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: After doing the nomination, I see this is a part of a disruptive pattern of articles by one user, all with the same POV, all deleted. Perhaps a speedy is more appropriate. --Rob (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an opinion on this AfD, but see also:Alleged terrorist camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, also created by User:Maheshkumaryadav. --Fang Aili ^talk 18:11, 5 May 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 Plane (Magic: The Gathering). Feel free to change the target by later discussion if you want, but since this page already has a list of planes Mercadia should be merged there. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mercadia

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

Fictional world in a trading card game. The article is entirely unsourced since 2009, and a Google search does not show reliable secondary sources discussing this fictional world, as would be required for a separate article by WP:V#Notability. If and when reliable sources for the subject are found, it may be mentioned at Plane (Magic: The Gathering) and a redirect may be created there. But currently the article should not be redirected because it is not described at the target article, and per WP:V, the current content should not be merged because it is unsourced. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phyrexia, where another article about a fictional world from this game was deleted for the same reasons. Sandstein 06:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mercadian Masques and Plane (Magic: The Gathering). Unlike Phyrexia, this setting is not very important in the MTG fantasy universe. Cool Hand Luke 14:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only to the extent the content is previously made verifiable, please. See my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamigawa‎‎. Sandstein 16:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per my comments on the related AfDs started by the same nom. Hobit (talk) 01:28, 30 April 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its clear what the outcome is but which of the suggested merge targets is correct? Suirely we can't merge to two articles and maintain attributation correctly. Please can we clarify and then this can close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:00, 5 May 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:17, 5 May 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Homar Rojas

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

Article doesn't really establish notability--just playing for a long time in minor league baseball is not inherently notable. The only reference/link is to another Wiki. Alex (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Baseball figures are presumed notable if they ... Have appeared in at least one game in ... any other top-level, well-established national league (active or defunct) that itself has notable coverage outside the primary language of that league's country." I am of the opinion that the Mexican League meets this standard of baseball's notability guidelines. Kinston eagle (talk) 01:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, that's correct. Really though, I have a problem with that standard, saying that the Mexican League, which is considered on par with Triple-A, is the equivalent of MLB. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, thinking about it some more, does it really have "notable coverage outside the primary language of that league's country"? I don't see much of anything about the Mexican League. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's language that was inserted into the guideline in question on the sly by the nominator, without discussion or consensus on the applicable talk page. As such, I have reverted it to the previously established consensus language, until such time as Alex can demonstrate that consensus has shifted to support his position. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Mexican League meeting "top-level, well-established national league (active or defunct) that itself has notable coverage outside the primary language of that league's country." Even though the Mexican League is not "the equivalent of MLB," the same could be said of any other national league. Rlendog (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True. If we ever revisit baseball notability, I may try to propose limiting that automatic qualifier to the bigger ones, like MLB, NPB, CPBL, KBL, and others like that, while not qualifying every "top-level" league without a consideration of what "top-level" means. But for today, this is a ~~keep~~. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC) I've decided to vote delete, my reasoning below. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think we need to establish by consensus at some point whether the Mexican League actually does meet the criteria spelled out above. Unlike other such leagues, the LMB actually has a working relationship with MLB and has the status of a Triple-A league. As such, I do not believe it meets the "top-level" portion of the requirements to allow for the conferring of assumed notability. -Dewelar (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, the working relationship. It is "top-level" in Mexico, though. I want to see LMB decertified as "top-level" in our books. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a higher level league in Mexico? Kinston eagle (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. A question for you: so what? Baseball is an international game. The best players go to MLB or the top Asian leagues. They don't stay in Mexico. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what? So the notability guideline specifically assumes notability if the person has "appeared in at least one game in ... any other top-level, well-established national league." By your own admission, he has appeared in the Mexican League which is national in scope and is the top level found in the entire country. If you want the guideline changed to "any other top-level, well-established national league except in Mexico," bring that argument up at the guideline's talk page. This isn't the place for that. This AfD page is for discussion on whether this specific player is notable by the guideline's criteria. The way the guideline's are written at this moment, he is. Kinston eagle (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's why, you'll notice, my vote still says keep. Though I am tempted by Dewelar's argument that the Mexican League is not the top-level league due to its agreement with MLB. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I'd like to see a consensus at WP:BASEBALL to decide the matter. I'm open to the idea of the Mexican League conferring notability (especially, as I've said in the past, for the years when players were blackballed for playing there), but I think some broader discussion is needed to establish whether it should or not. -Dewelar (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the guy who wrote the section on foreign leagues in the notability guideline, and I definitely considered the Mexican League to qualify at the time I wrote it. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did everybody else involved at the time know that? -Dewelar (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much, yeah. There was actually a good bit of support for saying that all long-tenured AAA players were inherently notable, although we ultimately ended up setting the bar a bit higher than that. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Kinston Eagle: the higher-level league in Mexico is, quite simply, MLB, because Mexico does not recognize the Mexican League as the highest-level league within its own country. MLB is officially a higher-level league than the Mexican League, as recognized by the LMB itself. Therefore they are not, de jure as well as de facto, the highest-level league in their country. -Dewelar (talk) 23:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing that there is no top-level league in Mexico is a pretty curious position to take, given that there are professional players playing ball there and games being held pretty much every day. If there's no league, then who's paying the players, and what are the fans who go to the games watching? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that the Mexican League existed long before there was any sort of agreement with MLB. As such, your reasoning totally collapses when applied to any Mexican League players from the period before the agreement was signed. Also note that unlike the affiliated minor leagues, the Mexican League teams do not have formal affiliation agreements with individual MLB clubs. They locate and sign their own players, and if a MLB club is interested in acquiring one of those players, it must come to an agreement with that club on a case-by-case basis - just like any other top-level national league. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first statement you made here is dependent on your definition of top-level. If a league recognizes another league as being of a higher level (which NPB, CPBL, etc., do not, but LMB does), and indeed considers itself a minor league, is it really "top-level"? I would argue that it is not. Note that the guideline does not say "highest level within the country" -- it says "top-level", which is more vague. (On a side note, "well-established" is also vague -- should the IBL qualify, as it's apparently been around for 60+ years?) As for the second statement, I have said previously that I would probably support pre-MLB agreement era Mexican League for notability (I implied it above as well, but it really doesn't pertain to Rojas). The rest of the second statement follows directly from the first statement. -Dewelar (talk) 23:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The language about "top-level leagues" was only inserted to prevent players from short-season leagues (i.e. winter-league teams) or foreign minor leagues (like the scout teams for NPB clubs) from being considered inherently notable, as those clubs are roughly analogous to the US affiliated minors. If you find the wording to be unclear, the guideline should probably be updated to reflect the intended meaning. I can assure you that nobody intended to exclude the Mexican League based on the sort of convoluted logic that you're applying - the Mexican League is one of the three highest-caliber foreign leagues in existence, along with Japan and Cuba. It'd be totally crazy to include Italian or Taiwanese or Israeli teams that are of a much lower quality, relatively speaking, while crossing out the Mexican League. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This makes a certain degree of sense, although there's a further piece to my thinking: I may be mistaken on this, but I am under the impression that MLB teams tend to sign the top Mexican players before they get to the LMB in the same way they do players from the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico, which is also untrue of the NPB/CPBL/KBO. If that's not correct then that would change my position to a degree. Either way, I think it would probably be worthwhile to get an idea of where consensus is at on the matter right now -- for instance, at this point, consensus seems to be that while CPBL players are notable, the Italian and Israeli Leagues are not, a position with which I have not been given reason to disagree, but might not be where you or someone else stands. -Dewelar (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point. For every LMB veteran to jump to MLB (like an Alfredo Aceves), there are many more Mexican teenagers who sign without playing any LMB ball (like Manny Banuelos). I'm increasingly seeing LMB as no longer meeting criteria of a "top-level" league, regardless of country. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you check, you'll see that all Mexican nationals signing with a MLB club technically first sign with a LMB club, who then sells their contract (and rights) to the MLB club that wants them. Banuelos, for example, signed with the Sultanes de Monterrey before his rights were transferred to the Yankees (as per this NYT link). 75% of the player's MLB signing bonus goes to the player's Mexican club, and the remaining 25% goes to the player (see this article about the Pittsburgh Pirates' signing of Luis Heredia). That agreement is the whole reason behind the LMB's loose association with MLB in the first place. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, then it has no effect on my vote whatsoever. Essentially, it's a convoluted method for MLB to subsidize the LMB -- Banuelos was only a member of Los Sultanes on paper so that LMB could get its payoff. That might even lower its status in my opinion. -Dewelar (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That "convoluted method" is, however, the only formal contact between MLB clubs and LMB ones (except the sale or loan of an unwanted MLB player to a LMB club, which also happens from time to time). Which places it on an entirely different footing than all clubs in the US minors, who have a formal affiliation with one particular MLB club and are supplied with (or relieved of) players exclusively by that one MLB club. That subordinate status of US minor league clubs is what the guideline was written to emphasize, and it's simply not present for LMB clubs. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 01:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same thing could be said of independent minor league clubs, which is exactly what the LMB clubs are. Allowing the LMB as currently structured to be notable and not the independent minors would be a biased viewpoint in that regard. -Dewelar (talk) 02:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it could, except that independent minor league clubs in the US are, by definition, not the top-level league in their country, due to the existence of MLB. As such, excluding them while including the LMB is hardly "biased". -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 04:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is. If we are using the level and status of a league to determine its ability to impart notability, then to treat two leagues that have the same level and status differently because they are in different countries is pretty much the definition of bias. -Dewelar (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand that the LMB's status as a AAA league is pretty much nominal. Alone among leagues with a level classification, its teams are not affiliated with a MLB franchise. They operate with complete independence. They sign, trade, and release players without input from any MLB franchise. Therefore, they do NOT have the same "status" as the IL or the PCL, and your argument about "bias" is nonsensical. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that these signings with LMB clubs are anything but paper transactions - the players in question spend at least several months with their LMB clubs, work out at team facilities with other members of the team, and if they're good enough, pitch in LMB games. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 01:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also unclear as to why an understanding of the details of the system by which LMB clubs sell players to MLB organizations would lower your opinion of the LMB, since on a fundamental level it's not significantly different than the posting system by which NPB players are transferred from their NPB clubs to MLB ones. The only difference is the length of the time the player is under contract with the team from his native country prior to the transfer. Or do you also hold a similarly low opinion of NPB? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 01:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing that suggests Banuelos ever played in the LMB. Heredia's case appears slightly different, in that according to the article Heredia seems to have pitched minimally at best so as not to overwork him and diminish his value to MLB teams. There are no stats for either player on the BBRef minor league database, and given the nebulous nature of the Heredia article there seems to be no real evidence that he pitched in the LMB either. Both players seem to have been signed by the LMB specifically with the end goal of selling them to MLB, which is not the case with any player in NPB of which I'm aware. -Dewelar (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Banuelos didn't play in league games because at that time, he wasn't good enough - during his time in Mexico, his fastball topped out at 86 MPH. Hardly surprising, given that he was seventeen years old (i.e. with the physical development of a high school junior), and would have been playing against full-grown men. He did, however, spend "several months" working with his LMB team (as per this article). Heredia spent even more time with his LMB club (Veracruz). He signed with them on January 1, 2010, and remained with them until August 19 (Link). Both were seen as prospects by their signing teams, to develop for a time and then either sell to another team at a profit or to use in their own organization once they had matured enough.-Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 04:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that pretty much seems to support my point. If they were good enough to play in the U.S. minors, they would never actually play in LMB. -Dewelar (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Valenzuela would certainly be surprised to hear that he wasn't good enough to play in the US minors...-Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As would Teddy Higuera, Erubiel Durazo, Fernando Salas, Oscar Robles, Francisco Cordova, Ricardo Rincon, Rodrigo Lopez, Walter Silva, etc. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your NPB analogy doesn't work because NPB clubs retain the rights of signed amateurs for a much longer time than LMB ones do, due to the nature of the league's operating agreement. Japanese players have much less leverage. There are, however, numerous NPB players who requested that their teams make them available to US clubs via the posting system as soon as the operating agreement permitted them to do so. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 04:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be because the NPB is not a US minor league, which the Mexican League, in essence, is. -Dewelar (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate? Your remark doesn't seem to make any sense, so I'm obviously not understanding the point you were trying to make. You seem to be drawing a distinction based on a relatively trivial difference between NPB and the LMB (i.e. the amount of time signed players remain under their club's control), while overlooking a much more important structural similarity (both leagues sell players to MLB, and in neither league is a team affiliated with a specific MLB franchise). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the nature of the working relationship between NPB and MLB and the working relationship of LMB and MLB are not equivalent. NPB is recognized as an independent major league, while LMB serves as an independent minor league. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of this discussion, I think that "independent" is a lot more important than "major". The former distinguishes it from typical minor leagues, while the latter is mitigated by its overwhelming prominence within Mexico. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the best argument to keep I've heard here. You are right that in the IL and PCL, teams have direct affiliations, while in LMB, they don't. Of course, in the Northern League, Atlantic League of Professional Baseball, and others, they also don't have affiliations. Granted those are clearly minor leagues. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than continue this discussion here, I have opened up a discussion at the sports notability talk page to get clarification on the consensus on the matter. -Dewelar (talk) 03:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rojas pitched in the Mexican League, which is a top-level national league, and thus meets the requirements of the applicable notability guideline. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:23, 4 May 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – Going against my own gut instinct on this one. I don't really believe that the Mexican League should be considered as bestowing notability on all who play in it, but WP:NSPORTS does imply that that is the case. This likely isn't the only case where it's questionable if a league called "top-level" really is. However, a guideline means more than my personal opinion, and it appears to meet the present wording of said guideline. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I remember there being a similar case when I nominated Jake Blalock for deletion, because he flailed in the minor leagues here and then signed on to play in Italy. It's a league with no particular notability, although there is no "higher" league there. Anywho, remember that we're allowed to ignore all rules. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No particular notability in the US, perhaps, but that's not necessarily the case within Italy itself. The Italian national team is one of the strongest in Europe. They won the European championships in 2010 (for the ninth time), and are typically qualifying participants in major international competitions like the World Baseball Classic, the Baseball World Cup, and the Olympics (when baseball was an Olympic sport). Most (though not all, admittedly) of the players on the Italian national team are taken from the rosters of the IBL. As such, I would argue that they are notable within the context of Italian athletics, and deserving of coverage in the interest of countering systemic bias within Wikipedia. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 00:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've changed my mind. LMB as it presently is is recognized as a minor league with a working agreement with MLB, and is therefore not the "top-level" of competition. Even though it's the "top-level" in Mexico, I'll use Wikipedia:Ignore all rules as my justification for going against the baseball notability guideline. I see no reason he should meet criteria for inclusion here. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to revise your !vote, as you are apparently operating under a mistaken impression as to how MLB signings of Mexican players work - see my comment regarding this upthread. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 23:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have read over your discussion up thread with Dewelar on this, considered all that you said, and I will retain my vote as delete. Even if a player like Banuelos was technically property of LMB for a time, it sounds like a bookkeeping strategy that serves some purpose for LMB. All I see is Banuelos not playing in LMB because he was recognized as a hot enough prospect to be signed by an MLB team as a teenager. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On top of that, I forgot that Alfredo Aceves signed as a free agent with the Blue Jays as an amateur free agent. He only went to LMB when he decided he didn't like playing in the DSL and the Jays released him so he could go home. He was no prized prospect at the time, like a Banuelos. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Banuelos wasn't a prized prospect at the time, either. The Yankees paid only $450k for a batch of players that included both Banuelos and Aceves. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:26, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that makes my point about the current insignificance of LMB even stronger. Banuelos wasn't regarded as highly as teenagers that get multimillion dollar bonuses, and yet he still bypassed the "top-level" league within the legal boundaries that constitute Mexico. LMB serves as a hybrid of an independent minor league and a Triple-A league. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the same time, there are numerous MLB-caliber players who DO play in LMB before being sold to a MLB club. See my (not-particularly-exhaustive) list above. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True. And much like our not-inherently notable AAA players in the IL and PCL, I don't think LMB players should be inherently notable unless they make the jump to MLB, or another top-level league. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I tend to agree with HBWS here about the notability of los jugadores de LMB. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The full criteria being used states (emphasis added) "Have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues: Major League Baseball, Nippon Professional Baseball, Korea Baseball Organization, Chinese Professional Baseball League or any other top-level national league (active or defunct)." By being a AAA-level minor league, the Mexican League is not a major league as REQUIRED for the presumption of notability. Thus, the article should be deleted since notability does not appear to be otherwise established. RonSigPi (talk) 04:05, 12 May 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Women of Fear Factor

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

not notible, weak references found Alan - talk 01:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inane cash-in DVD collecting dust in bargain bins at...ahem, certain stores and warehouses everywhere from a show forgotten from only five years ago. Why this ever needed an article is beyond me. Nate • (chatter) 04:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Sourcing exists via Daytona Beach News-Journal, DVDTown, MovieWeb, and DVD Movie Guide. The last three are redlinked, these publications are used in other WP articles as secondary sources. Google Books also shows this DVD was mentioned in title Girls gone skank: the sexualization of girls in American culture, by author Patrice Oppliger. This would be enough to satisfy WP:GNG. riffic (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't see how any of these sources meets guidelines for serious, independent, in-depth coverage of the subject. That a few guides acknowledge that this DVD exists is no excuse to have an article on it. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 16:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Daytona reference is from a review in a print newspaper. Having a review published in a newspaper such as this would establish notability. I don't have access to the full article because it's behind a paywall but it appears to be mostly about the DVD (I'd love to have a researcher with news archival access verify this before throwing a !vote here) riffic (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

another note: the sources that are redlinked are mostly reviews as well, which all offer serious, independent in-depth coverage of the subject. Their only fallbacks are they don't have their own articles on WP so their reliability is unknown (but I would not use that as a reason to discount their usefulness as a source to establish notability) riffic (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the 'redlinks' are't sources as they don't exist, which is why they are RED. Can you please stop trying to annoy people in afd discussions, it's going to get you nowhere but off wikipedia (and you have warnings about it from others already on your talk page). Alan - talk 22:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to annoy people in afd discussions, I am legitimately trying to contribute to the project. Please, support your accusations with evidence of acting in bad faith, if that is your intention. otherwise, take this to another venue (as it is not relevant to THIS discussion) riffic (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Who wants a pair of buffalo testicles and a fly milkshake, anyway? (Yes, I watched a couple of episodes when bored.) Also fails WP:N. CycloneGU (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak-ish keep as per the sources discussed by Riffic. Just like to point out that the fact a website has an article on here does not make it a reliable source, and conversely the fact that it is 'redlinked' does not make it an unreliable source. The existance of a review in The Daytona Beach News-Journal is quite suggestive of notability, but I have my doubts as to their reliability of the other sources. From DVDTOWN.com 'about' page it appears to have editorial oversight, and as such is good enough for me. doomgaze (talk) 22:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. A review and a half, that's not a whole lot, as far as I'm concerned. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Riffic. However, Critical reception can not be based on a single review, that section has to be merged or rewritten.Cavarrone (talk) 09:48, 1 May 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Negligible editorial coverage. It might be appropriate to mention this in the Fear Factor article, but I don't see any of the actual content here being suitable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:57, 7 May 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rabiah the Infinite

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

Fictional world in a trading card game. The article is entirely unsourced since its creation in 2006(!), and a Google search does not show reliable secondary sources discussing this fictional world, as would be required for a separate article by WP:V#Notability.

If and when reliable sources for the subject are found, it may be mentioned at Plane (Magic: The Gathering) and a redirect may be created there. But currently the article should not be redirected because it is not described at the target article. Per WP:V, the current content should also not be merged because it is unsourced. I do not object to a selective merger to the extent somebody does find reliable sources and, more importantly, adds them to the article as inline citations.

Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phyrexia, where another article about a fictional world from this game was deleted for the same reasons. Sandstein 19:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and trout to nominator for not doing so rather than bringing the AfD. Redirects are cheap and it's plain that any redirect would be kept at RfD. Hobit (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the content is not sourced and thus not mergeable. Otherwise I'd have performed a selective merger, as I've with another similar article, Dominaria. Sandstein 05:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. As discussed in the guidelines in WP:NOTCLEANUP, "eventually sourceable" articles should not be deleted merely because nobody has sourced them yet. As Magic: The Gathering is the biggest player in the CCG industry, it should not be difficult to find secondary sources. Further, WP:PRIMARY seems to concern itself primarily with the basis of articles, not entries in articles. As such, a merge is a valid and fair compromise. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- we don't merge unreferenced content, particularly if it's just regurgitated plot summary as this article is. And "there might be sources some day eventually maybe" is not an adequate response to someone who has looked unsuccessfully for them. Reyk _YO! 03:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't remove topics from articles because there isn't an independent reliable source. Non-independent RSes are acceptable once notability has been established. Are you claiming no such source exists -or- that such a source wouldn't be enough to then mention the topic in a different article -or- something else? [15] and [16] (for example) would be a non-independent RSes that cover the topic. Hobit (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - What would you like to do? Source these articles to non-independent sources and then merge them somewhere else? Why not just write properly sourced content at your preferred merge target? Reyk _YO! 22:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - We seem to agree this can and should be covered elsewhere. But you'd rather delete the material so people have to start over? Why not use the material that already exists? If you are willing to rewrite from scratch, please feel free. Hobit (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - We should merge because this is a valid topic, and our volunteer contributors ought to know (as everyone else should) that they're being given credit for the nucleus of an article that will be found at Plane (Magic: The Gathering) going forward. Unsourced content is a better starting point than no content at all. Cool Hand Luke 15:42, 3 May 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fictional location does not meet the general notability guideline, so it is not a valid topic. The article itself is a plot-only description of a fictional work with no real-world context and it lacks reliable third-party sources. I do not see a valid reason to merge the content since the text in the article is a detailed plot-only description of a fictional work and Wikipedia is not a complete exposition of all possible details, it has zero references and it is completely unnecessary to understand the card game Magic: The Gathering. The mention that it already has in the list Plane (Magic: The Gathering)#Natural Planes is sufficient. Since Wikipedia is not a game guide, there is no justified reason to add more extra details to a non-notable fictional world. Jfgslo (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Erb? The current content you say is sufficient is a bare link to this article. Could you explain? Hobit (talk) 03:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. To understand the card game Magic: The Gathering it is only needed to mention that, as part of the settings, there are Natural Planes and a small description of what that concept is. There is no need to give a detailed explanation of each of individual planes. Mentioning them in a list is more than enough. If it were up to me, I would remove the description of the planes that have it since most of them aren't sourced and, with no references, they give completely unnecessary details and Wikipedia is not a complete exposition of all possible details. So, it is more than enough to mention Rabiah in the list of the natural planes without adding a description of it. Jfgslo (talk) 14:56, 10 May 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 Plane (Magic: The Gathering). Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kamigawa

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

Fictional world in a trading card game. The article is substantially unsourced, containing only links to the manufacturer's descriptions of individual cards set in that world (which are not sources for the fictional world as such) A Google search does not show reliable secondary sources discussing this fictional world, as would be required for a separate article by WP:V#Notability. There seem to be some novels or other media set in this world, but they seem to be written and published by the company producing the game, or its employees.

If and when reliable sources for the subject are found, it may be mentioned at Plane (Magic: The Gathering) and a redirect may be created there. But currently the article should not be redirected because it is not described at the target article, and per WP:V, the current content should not be merged because it is unsourced (and also because apart from the lead it fails WP:GAMEGUIDE). Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phyrexia, where another article about a fictional world from this game was deleted for the same reasons. Sandstein 06:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, where appropriate to Plane (Magic: The Gathering), Champions of Kamigawa, Betrayers of Kamigawa and Saviors of Kamigawa. I would also support merging all four Kamigawa articles into a single article on the Kamigawa block—parceling up the storyline elements among the sets doesn't make a lot of sense. I agree that much of the article should not be merged, but most of the lede is easily verified and should be preserved somewhere. Cool Hand Luke 16:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to a selective merger, but only to the extent that the content that is to be merged is made verifiable by inline citations to reliable sources. Unsourced content should not be merged. (Otherwise, per WP:V, anybody can simply delete it from the target article and it may not be re-added except with references.) Sandstein 16:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I'll try to cite some of the lede this weekend. Cool Hand Luke 16:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per my comments in the other MtG location AfDs (there are a group of them all started at about the same time). Hobit (talk) 01:27, 30 April 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the outcome is clear its not entirely clear what the merge targets are. Please can we confirm this and then this can close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Plane (Magic: The Gathering) would appear to be the correct target. I'm not a subject expert though. Hobit (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any sourced content to Plane (Magic: The Gathering). Qrsdogg (talk) 01:38, 9 May 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 consensus was to either keep or merge. While there is clear consensus to keep this in some form, there was no clear decision as to keeping or merging. Article is kept, and a new discussion should be opened to decide if the material should be merged into New Century Foundation SilkTork *^{Tea time} 20:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Color of Crime (New Century)

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

Non notable selfpublished leaflet by semi-notable racialist organization. No coverage in reliable third party sources. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not adverse to merging to a relevant article.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This has received media coverage including on BET. [17] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrrrr5 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC) — Rrrrr5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

*Delete no coverage from third part sourcing fail notability The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

- Prefer deletion but redirect seems a viable alternative The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I am not seeing enough coverage under scrutiny for it to be deleted but not sure it has enough coverage for its own article. Thus Merging seems most appropriate The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FORK. This is an unbalanced article directly describing a controversial primary source, not discussed in any secondary sources. The article concerns a 24 page White supremacist propaganda pamphlet with no ascribed authors. The leaflet is already amply described in the parent article New Century Foundation. Mathsci (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion below of Arxiloxos is also fine by me. Mathsci (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to New Century Foundation and adjust the DAB page The Color of Crime accordingly. No need for separate article, but possibly a legitimate search term since this piece of propoganda is mentioned in press reports here and there.[18]--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Racist nonsense. No ref. Szzuk (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Do you mean that our article itself is racist nonsense or that it is about racist nonsense? The first would be a valid reason for deletion, but the second would not. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to New Century Foundation. Article is NPOV and unreferenced as is.--Dmol (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable POV junk not covered in 3rd party sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news archive search has 17 results for "The Color of Crime" AND "New Century". The first one is an article by Pat Buchanan [19] which mentions it and list the stats from it. Dream Focus 18:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an article it is an editorial/opinion piece. It does not establish notability by a very long longshot.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Psst WP:SIGCOV portion of WP:NOTE is the most relevant. WP:SIGCOV portion cover the issue here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge redirect - Aside from the obvious POV issue, there isn't enough independent and significant coverage of this publication to justify its own page. Yaksar (let's chat) 02:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- BET, C-Span, and the Washington Times aren't enough? Rrrrr5 (talk) 08:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No amount of passing mentions is enough. Notability is established by coverage in sources that are about the topic, not sources that merely mention it.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And with the amount and depth of the coverage it does have, and the relatively little information available, it doesn't seem very logical to have this information separate from the article on the foundation.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the Washington Times mentioned it is only supported by a blog post by Jared Taylor, who also complains that the media is conspiring to silence the pamphlet. That is a pretty good case for lack of notability and fringe status in itself.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. Yaksar (let's chat) 02:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has to say Keep per Dream Focus reasonings.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete. The content of the publication is irrelevant. Many semi-notable organizations have journals, newsletters, or various publications that receive GHits but are not notable enough to fork into a stand-alone article. Merge sourced information, then delete as "The Color of Crime (New Century)" [emphasis on "(New Century)"] is an unlikely search term. Location (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a merge is done I'm pretty sure the original has to remain as at least a redirect for attribution reasons. Although given the amount of information and the amount of coverage it should get in the organization's article, it's entirely possible for the information to be included there without a merge from here.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are references to it in a number of books. As well as articles, though most are behind pay sites -- still, what we can see (some of which is now in the article itself) is sufficient to reflect notability. Not pretty stuff, but we can't let idontlikeit be the reason for deletion when it has been noted in a number of books, including those put out by university presses (Cambridge, U of Missouri, as well as Macmillan), over the years.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By the same logic every new piece of propaganda—described in the secondary sources as "racist" and "white supremacist"—from this publisher, such as [http://www.amren.com/features/hispanics/index.html Hispanics: A Statistical Portrait], should have its own wikipedia article. It's surely better to treat all of these in New Century Foundation. Mathsci (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, its tempting to censor the racists. But if it is sufficiently covered in RSs and meets our notability standards, it is not that it "should have" a wp article ... but the question is whether it should be deleted. If it meets our notability standards, even if it is Mein Kampf or the Protocols, we tend to cover it. Subsuming it in another article and redirecting the searches for this publication to that article would not seem to me to be more than cosmetic.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a question of censorship, just of where an appropriate place is to describe such propaganda, in its proper context. A passing mention in a footnote of a secondary source does not establish separate notability. Along with the "Hispanics" article mentioned above, the footnote gives it as an example of a genre of document, with no discussion of its content. Mathsci (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple references to it in RSs, including it being termed "a classic" of the genre of output by white nationalist academic racists, sways me. That it is propoganda (to us) is not the key point, IMHO, but actually diverts us from focusing on the fact that it is IMHO sufficiently RS-covered.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources are about the Pamphlet, but pnly mentions it. Notability is only established by sources that are explicitly about the topic, not sources about other topics that give it passing mention.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Maunus -- I'm confused. As I just mentioned, inter alia, one of the sources even calls the specific pamphlet "a classic" of the genre. That certainly strikes me as "about the Pamphlet", and there are a number of sources in the article even -- let alone viewable in a google search -- that suggest that your assertion in the nomination that there is "no coverage" in RSs is over-exuberant, and perhaps doesn't quite cast an accurate picture.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was an SPLC Intelligence Report article explicitly about this, and the C-Span source explicitly discusses it. Rrrrr5 (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, so I can read up on this topic some more, where are the sources that you found? Rrrrr5 (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might look at some of the specific sources in the following google searches:articles, articles 2, books, books 2, google, google2, google scholar, scholar 2 As you can see, there are even more RS references in the searches than are (now) reflected in the article. In addition to the references, criticisms, use of it to support positions, and kudos variously found in

^ "Jared Taylor/American Renaissance: Ideology". ADL. January 11, 2011.[20]
^ "Race and Crime Report". C-SPAN Video Library. June 2, 1999.[21]
^ "Glenn Spencer". Southern Poverty Law Center. July 29, 2000.[22]
^ Carol Miller Swain (2002). The new white nationalism in America: its challenge to integration. Cambridge University Press.[23]
^ "Coloring crime, SPLC, Intelligence Report, Issue Number: 99". Southern Poverty Law Center. Summer 2000.[24]
^ Barbara Perry. Hate Crimes. Greenwood Publishing Group.[25]
^ Paul Gottfried (2004). Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt: Toward a Secular Theocracy. University of Missouri Press.[26]
^ Walter Donald Kennedy (2003). Myths of American slavery. Pelican Publishing.[27]
^ James P. Cantrell (2006). How Celtic culture invented Southern literature. Pelican Publishing.[28]
^ Pat Buchanan (2007). State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America. Macmillan.[29]
^ "The Color of Crime in the U.S.". Ocala Star-Banner. August 23, 2007.[30]--Epeefleche (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pelican publications are described by the SPLC here as Neo-confederate. In addition Gottfried has spoken at AmRen conferences (run by Jared Taylor).[31] Some of the authors are linked to the association Sons of Confederate Veterans. So it is unclear how many of the sources given above are reliable in this context. Apart from a passing mention in a foot note of Hate Crimes, the only WP:RS which describes the pamphlet objectively in any detail is Carol Swain's C.U.P. book. Mathsci (talk) 11:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per Mathsci. Holding Ray (talk) 07:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC) — Holding Ray (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep after the enormous improvements to the article's sourcing by Epeefleche. Notability is sufficiently demonstrated in reliable third party sources, and documenting racist tracts is not the same as endorsing them. Quigley (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tx for the kind words. I do understand how the early !voters could have been misled by nom's blanket statement that "No coverage in reliable third party sources". Am glad to see that, once that is show not to be the case, the reaction is different.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The publication seems to have attracted some comment and it is our editing policy to keep the good work which has gone into documenting this. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
merge or delete - per Mathsci, and Arxiloxos. The RS's used are very slim for a stand alone article, but enough that a straight up delete is probably not the right course. I do think a redirect to whereever it goes is good idea. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The original article as nominated was short and unsourced... suitable for redirection or merge. However, over the following week, and through the work of several editors, including the nominator himself, the article has been much expanded and sourced, and now shows itself to be a suitably encyclopic article about a notale topic. As was once pointed out to me, sunlight is the best disinfectant. If someone wants to look up the book and comes to Wikipedia, at least it can be seen who the detractors consist of, and their thinking. We offer balance. And as we are here to aid readers in an understanding of topics, this one now serves the prohect. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:38, 4 May 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, despite that I think it's nutbars. By their logic, crime in NYC should have gone up as the number of minorities increased, while in fact it has gone down drastically in the past 15 years. It's a fringe publication, all right, that is "not even wrong" -- its statements and claims are divorced from science, and are not reality-based. Whether it's a notable fringe theory or publication is colorable. I'm not in favor of publicizing racists and crazees, but there are some citations. I'm not sure Pat Buchanan and the Washington Times could be considered reliable, but Southern Poverty Law Center is the go-to group on Hate crime laws in the United States. It also depends on an interpretation of WP:SIGCOV, and whether you think it's a good or bad idea to publicize such nonsense. So I'm leaning towards a keep, but I won't be heartbroken if it goes away or is merged. Bearian (talk) 15:18, 11 May 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Benfleet Running Club

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

Long-tagged as an advert, this is a puff piece about non-notable small town sports club. Simple Bob^{a.k.a. The Spaminator} (Talk) 15:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No in depth coverage in reliable sources, other than routine coverage in local newspaper, the Evening Echo (Essex), which is insufficient for notability. Cullen328 (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Simple Bob. Rcsprinter^{Gimme a message} 17:01, 10 May 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. This was a difficult close for a number of reasons, not least the number of articles listed for deletion. At the heart of the deletion discussion was the principle of having articles that are lists of consorts. Our notability guideline is that ”A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources.” Part of the problem in determining that, is that most of the lists were totally unsourced, and those that were sourced, were sourced to information about the title-holders, not their spouses. However, as a general principle, there is an academic and popular interest in consorts, so it is not inconceivable that there will be some source somewhere which refers to the "Duchesses of Longueville" or "Duchesses of Bourbon" for example. That the lists are mainly unsourced is a cause for concern, and some very good points have been raised in the AfD discussion about the reliability and accuracy of the information. However, that is generally seen as a reason for clean up, rather than deletion. Good suggestions were made for merging the consorts with their partners – and it was interesting to note that for those title-holder articles I looked at, the spouses were not listed, though they usefully could be. Pertinent to this AfD is that ” Wikipedia articles are not … Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as … persons – which adds “Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic.” Much of the lists do indeed contain people who have articles on Wikipedia, and do so precisely because they are consorts of Dukes or Counts. While much of the keep comments were unhelpfully terse, providing the closer with nothing useful, or were simply mistaken; and a few of the delete comments did go into well argued detail; on the whole, the weight of the keeps combined with lack of policy/guideline advice which actually disallows this sort of material (the advice pointed more to keeping), leans toward a keep, though with a strong recommendation to source the material, and to consider merging with the title-holder articles or lists, leaving a redirect in place. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 21:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of consorts of Elbeuf

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

Not notable. Wikipedia is not a genealogical reference and even those only give lists of title-holders, not their spouses. Nothing else really links to this page except a few of the articles given in the list. Opera hat (talk) 12:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:[reply]

I've started off with these French articles as their husbands weren't even sovereign rulers, but there are lots and lots more like List of consorts of Baden and List of consorts of Schwarzburg. I thought I'd see how it goes with these first. Opera hat (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mild keep. If a single sentence in some book refers to the Duchess of Elbeuf in 1796, this will tell you who it is (nobody; the source is in error); in 1786, on the other hand, it's the Dowager Duchess, Innocentia Catherine. That information is occasionally useful (to many people, not just genealogists), and is difficult (and may be impossible) to quarry out of the husbands' articles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)'[reply]
Keep This is historical information and has very little to with genealogy. This is the sort of stuff I typically search for. Dimadick (talk) 21:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful information in the subject of history and genealogy, especially if certain individuals are not notable enough for their own articles. Nightw 21:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These "consort" articles are unnecessary and redundant because spousal information on every one of the titleholders is included in several places on each individual's article. Moreover, most of these "consorts" also have individual articles -- and no information is supplied on the consorts' articles that is not also contained in the titleholder's (and/or consort's) articles. Those who wish to aggregate info on consorts of noblemen may do so by gathering that information on their spouses' individual articles -- Wikipedia has no reason consistent with our mission to offer articles consisting solely of that information for them, given its redundancy and dubious notability. FactStraight (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Agricolae (talk) 03:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Usually consorts have some influence upon the rule of their husbands and some consorts are as notable if not more notable their husbands. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Make the inclusionists happy: rename each List of monarchs of Foo to List of monarchs and consorts of Foo. —Tamfang (talk) 03:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and reference better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a small cadre of editors who have been prolific in the construction of these lists, and while I can appreciate their enthusiasm and diligence, I have never been fond of the product. Almost all of the pages are devoid of supporting sourcing, with data made up or copied from husbands' entry on parallel 'List of Monarchs' pages. Many of them violate WP:NOR, assigning to people titles that they themselves never used, all because their husband may have been entitled to a title that they never used either, all based on the compiler's own opinion of what qualifies as legitimacy (for example, find for me a single reference that calls Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen consort of the Isle of Man, or for that matter, anyone on the entire page). The whole concept is a neologism in many cases. At one point I tried to come up with a ridiculous page for comparison, in the form of, "This would be as ridiculous as having a page for Consorts of Foo" but had to abandon the argument because every attempt I made to come up with a ridiculous example met with an existing Consorts of Foo page. Many of the dates are made up: women known only from a single document are assigned dates for their reigns. Some of the tables have entirely mythological 'queens'. In many cases, the ambiguity in the historical record is too complex to display in such tables. There is also an underlying assumption that the wife of any landholder is worthy of listing on the sole basis that they married someone, a clear violation of WP:NOTINHERITED. Along with the pedigrees being attached to all the historical biographies, these tables seem to have been exempted from all standards of reliability and documentation, NOR, RS, etc. Agricolae (talk) 07:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Respone: Church records referred to Adelaide's predeccessor Queen Charlotte and her husband King George III as the Lord and Lady of Mann.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But not Adelaide and not "consort"? The very use of the term violates NOTINHERITED, as it is simply being used for "the woman married to the guy who held some sort of power in". It could mean Queen or Lady, in the case of Mann it is being used for both, yet even with Queen it is really 'the woman who married the guy calling himself king' of something that for much of the run wasn't a kingdom and just reflects self-glorification. And then there is Lady, which is nothing but a courtesy title, in many cases assumed rather than documented, for the woman married to the so-called Lord of Mann. All that can be said in it's favor is that it doesn't fall victim to invented numbering that plagues the husbands' pages - find a source that calls James Murray, 2nd Duke of Atholl, James III Murray of Mann - I find two in all of Google books, which seems more to reflect a quirky usage of a couple of authors rather than standard nomenclature. That being said, Mann is not at issue, at least right now. Agricolae (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not encyclopaedic. These lists are a hobby for interested editors rather than a genuine information resource for readers in general. Alternatively, merge with respective monarch lists per Tamfang. Scolaire (talk) 08:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Tamfang. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the British lists might be the more 'popular' of the lists amongst editors and readers, and that if anything is to be decided, we ought to discuss the fate of the 'main' ones before the more 'obscure' ones. The obscure ones don't stand a chance, but put up the British lists for deletion and I think the discussion here will be a bit more lively. For example the first one the list (List of consorts of Alençon) only got 56 hits in March; however List of British consorts had 5,500. Include all the lists in this AFD, or start with the main or most popular ones first. I think it's a bit sneaky to start off with obscure ones and build up momentum to tackle the more popular ones.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we not want to get rid of any page that 'doesn't stand a chance', at any time? Agricolae (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Can't really see a good reason to delete these. Royal consorts are generally considered notable, so lists of them are fine as far as I'm concerned. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of the pages up for deletion are lists of royal consorts. Agricolae (talk) 13:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. Most of these people would have been considered royal, or as good as, at the time. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds a bit POV to me. Agricolae (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand the meaning of POV. It's not my POV, but a general POV. These are clearly all or mostly families which are royal or are connected to royalty. How could anyone say the Bourbons or Angevins were not royal families, for instance? In any case, fixating on one word is not useful. Royal or aristocratic, these people are notable. That's a POV, and given that this is an AfD debate not an article, a POV is perfectly acceptable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can say anything you want, but something consistent with the notability guidelines would probably carry more weight. I probably don't want to get into this, but every aristocrat is automatically notable? Exactly how far down the social scale does this existential notability extend? Every person with a descent from or a connection to royalty is notable? WP:Notability and WP:BIO make it clear that the claim that 'All members of Foo are inherently notable' is invalid. Agricolae (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said they were. However, I do believe these lists are useful and that there is no reason to delete them. Deletion for deletion's sake, which this appears to me to be, is never useful. There's a lot of rubbish on Wikipedia which should be deleted; these articles do not fall into that category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my view these represent listcruft and a misplaced attempt at gender equity that did not apply during their lives or among published sources ever since, an attempt to 'correct' a historical wrong by pretending that the wife of a feudal lord was as important as the lord (or in some cases more important, as we have some Consort pages without corresponding pages for the people who actually ruled). Further, they are disasters waiting to happen, just like the pedigrees that are proliferating. Every empty space just 'has' to be filled, so dates that cannot possibly be known are invented (or copied from someone who did), disputed parentage is being represented unambiguously or as some confused chimera between mutually exclusive options, and the most obscure claims are being used as bases for the creation of yet another page. All of these basically relate to the same issue: no scholar out in the real world has cared enough to compile such information, and thus these pages are being created as WP:OR (via WP:SYNTH) devoid of any WP:RS as an underpinning, or in some cases without an understanding or familiarity with the literature that exists on the subject. I am not saying all such lists lack notability, certainly there has been a lot of work on Queens of England, but outside of Wikipedia, I doubt anyone has compiled a list of Manx consorts. You could argue that is what is so useful about them, but it is what makes them unreferenced original research that is untrustworthy. In treating as equally notable everything from an empire to a kingdom to a title adopted by a monarch for self-glorification without any real distinct land associated with it, to an alternative name for the same kingdom, to administrative subdivisions of a larger crown, to claims to a mythical or long-gone crowns as of equal relevance, these lose all sense of perspective. As such, given all of the inaccurate information, POV and WP:UNDUE weight issues, they do as much a disservice to readers as they are a benefit. It is not deletion for deletion sake, it is improvement of Wikipedia by removing a problem. Agricolae (talk) 00:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be one of those deletionist editors who misuses WP:OR to refer to legitimate compilations of information they don't like. That is not OR, as is quite clearly spelled out in the policy. OR is original research. Compiling accurate, referenced fact, whether it's appeared in that specific form or not, is not original research. Otherwise pretty much everything we published, unless it was a copyvio, would be OR. If it is recorded in a legitimate source that X was the wife of Y then in no way can it be considered OR for us to say so, whether some scholar has previously compiled such a list in this form or not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we are apparently making requests of each other, please don't be one of those editors who tries to diminish others by calling them names (deletionist) and mischaracterizing their arguments as WP:IDONTLIKEIT (and don't pretend you weren't doing this, even though you presented it in the form of a request not to be that way). I have argued that this is WP:OR by WP:SYNTH, that they almost all lack WP:RS (look at the footnotes - they usually just report other supposed titles held by the same person), and that nobody outside of Wikipedia seems to think these people as a class merit the kind of special attention they are being given, making it WP:UNDUE, lacking in WP:NOTABILITY, and the argument given in support by the compilers is frequently little more than WP:SOAP (if the rulers deserve a page, then their wives do too). To just whitewash all of these complaints as nothing but WP:IDONTLIKEIT is inaccurate and hardly fair, particularly when the only reasons you have given for keeping it is effectively "such people are inherently notable", a violation of WP:INHERITED, one of the WP:ATA (Arguments to avoid). If no scholar or writer has found it of use to deal with "countesses of Foix" as a prosopographical grouping, then it is hardly 'deletionist' to suggest that such a topic is wanting in notability. If no scholar writing in English call the holders of the Castilian crown anything but Kings of Castile or Kings of Leon and Castile then it is hardly 'deletionist' to suggest that creating a page called List of Galician consorts naming their wives is doing more than just compiling accurate (sic) referenced fact (sic), it is original synthesis. You are correct that I don't like them. I don't like them because many of them are sloppy, unreliable, undocumented, giving undue weight to a nonnotable topic. Agricolae (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another request. Please read what I actually said before rushing to answer it. I didn't say you were a deletionist or that your argument was IDONTLIKEIT. I said please don't start going down that route. This is clearly not OR and shouldn't be characterised as such. Editors who start claiming things are OR when they clearly aren't are in danger of seeing their arguments diminished. It is a growing tendency on Wikipedia to accuse other editors inaccurately of OR and it is not one to be encouraged. I have never said these people are inherently notable, but that is an argument for individual articles about them, not for lists that mention them, since many of the people on the lists do have articles and clearly are notable. If we only included notable people on lists then our lists would be incomplete. It is enough that many of the people on the list are notable for the list to exist. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, of course you were accusing me of it. Hiding behind the addition of "please don't be one of those people who . . ." is just playing wordgames to provide the attack with deniability. It's not fooling anyone, which is why I suggested you not waste our time with the semantic exercise, but so much for that. As to OR, to call someone a Queen of Galicia that nobody calls a queen of Galicia, or a Queen of France that nobody calls a queen of France, as these editors have done because they have determined that the woman's husband had some historical claim to Galicia or France or included the title of king of one of these places among a long list of self-glorifying titles when the territory in question didn't exist as a distinct entity, is OR. To include a date for the end of a reign that is nothing but the year when their husband the king died, simply because no death date is known for the woman but most women survive their husbands, is likewise OR, but that has been done in these lists too. To conclude that if a family ever used a coat of arms, that coat was used by all members of the family including at periods long before anyone used heraldry is also Original Research. I could go on - these are not hypotheticals but actual cases from these pages, and they are all examples of WP:OR, plain and simple. The fact that it is badly done and reaches flawed conclusions does not change the fact that they are drawing (wrong) conclusions not reached by any of their sources. Nothing inaccurate about the characterization whatsoever. These tables are magnets for such nonsense. As to Notability, I am not arguing over the notability of individuals, I am saying the topic is non-notable in many cases. It is not enough that many people on a list are notable to justify a list. I could make a List of people with an A as the third letter of their middle name, and that would contain many notable people, but to claim sufficient grounds for such a list to exist based on fulfilling this sole criterion is patently ridiculous. The topic itself has to have some degree of notability. I LIKE IT and "it contains some notable people" are insufficient justifications for a list. Agricolae (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC) Just an added note of clarification. These problems are not unique to the List of consorts of X pages, they are also rife in the List of Xian monarchs pages. One of them compiles a whole list of so-called monarchs with invented regnal numbers for a title that was never more than a new administrative district created from recently conquered lands (while completely ignoring the actual monarchs who had ruled it as an independent state prior to the conquest). Agricolae (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that these consorts' spouses were notable when alive and belonged to notable dynasties -- although the wives of, for example, the Ducs d'Elbeuf -- who were a minor cadet branch of the House of Guise, itself a cadet branch of the Dukes of Lorraine -- cannot be compared to the consorts of the Holy Roman Emperors or to those of kings. The real problem is redundancy: the information for every consort is entirely included on the titleholder's article. And most of these consorts also have their own Wiki articles, which include the same info. The question is the notability of "family of semi-royal consorts" as a stand-alone Wiki article, and in particular, an article for every family that ever reigned or held a large fief. These consorts' notability may be real, but for the vast majority it is entirely derivative, and there are virtually no published sources which group them as do these articles; you'll find few books that treat even the empresses or queens of a dynasty, or of different dynasties, as a group. They should be listed in Wiki categories rather than given individual Wiki articles. FactStraight (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Irish consorts list & re-name it List of Irish consorts, as we have List of English consorts, List of Scottish consorts & List of British consorts. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion seems to be losing focus. No page relating to Irish consorts is currently under consideration. Agricolae (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was added (in an incorrect way) at 9:24 today. The article should have its own AfD. GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that will just muddy the waters. Agricolae (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the Irish consorts list, since the one who added it is not the original nominator, and in fact only voted "merge". Many had voted before it was added, also, so this vote/discussion cannot be considered to include that article in its scope. Srnec (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (but without prejudice). It is not worth trying to keep what is of value in these articles (very little). It is better to throw the rubber duck out with the bath water, once the baby's crapped in it. Who every talks about any "consort of Montpellier"? The terminology is ridiculous, the page formatting is atrocious and if these are just lists of spouses of office-holders the information worth keeping is extraordinarily easy to incorporate into the lists of officeholders themselves, if necessary (as in a few cases it might be). Srnec (talk) 00:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You do realize that the lists include information on 1) the names of each spouse, 2) his/her father and/or House, 3) time of birth, 4) time/date of marriage, 5) time of becoming the consort 6) time of ceasing to be the consort, 7) time of death. How exactly do you add this information on a table about the officeholders themselves? Dimadick (talk) 05:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you have to? Why would you want to? If the consorts are notable, then it will be (or should be) on their own page so a simple link to the consort's page will suffice. If non-notable, there is always the husband's page. Most Wikipedia lists are simply finding aids with links to the pages with the actual information. The attempt to make these into high-density data repositories, without the appropriate sourcing, analysis, background, etc., is part of the problem with these pages. Agricolae (talk) 15:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted the information at all, you'd do it by adding to the list of officeholders a line saying "married on 29 May 1786 (annulled 9 December 1791) to Hermine Walburga (16 March 1769 – 14 January 1827), daughter of Prince Friedrich Ferdinand of Faffenheim-Munsterburg-Weiningen". All the same info without those great unwieldy tables. Opera hat (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These are not lists of random trivia, but potential resources for studies in prosopography. WP:LISTPEOPLE does not require that all individual members of a list be of sufficient independent notability to sustain an article; it's OK as long as the person on such list would be notable enough to appear in an article, and reliable sources can attest to the person's eligibility for the list. If a list entry is dubious, it should be marked {{cn}}. I've found that if an article meets notability requirements but has only one or two links to it, it just means there are articles that could link to it but don't, so an orphan tag is an invitation to look for links. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is arguing that everyone in such a list should be notable, but whether the list itself is notable. The County of Foix is barely notable, let alone Everyone who ever married anyone who ever claimed the County of Foix, which is what some of these lists amount to. Agricolae (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should not be a potential resource for a study in anything. Opera hat (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The lists of duchesses and countesses are certainly non-indiscriminate lists of notable people, and thus appropriate list subjects. If relevant and appropriate information is missing, it should be added. The lists of consorts also seem largely made up of notable people, and thus appropriate as well. Rlendog (talk) 15:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Marriage to someone who held a notable title is two steps away from inherent notability. —Tamfang (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not convinced that Duchess and Countess are not inherently notable titles. In any case, people such as Duchess of Berry were effectively the first lady of their duchy, which makes them as notable as first ladies of various states on that basis alone. And in any case, many of the people on these lists are themselves notable through GNG if not through inherent notability. Rlendog (talk) 00:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, among Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: Notability is inherited - "Keep - All examples of foo are inherently notable" and "Keep – there are lots of famous people on this list, so it's notable". All such 'First Ladies' have not occupied similar standing in their respective states. Some have fulfilled a formalized ceremonial and political role, others were just the latest chick the count happened to marry, and spent their lives in the boudoir doing needlepoint and in the bedroom producing an heir. One is certainly more likely to be notable than the other. (This even applies to wives of kings - look at Ælfgifu of York and you will see a non-notable royal spouse (or spouses), not that that has prevented the creation of a page to document how much of a historical non-entity she was.) Agricolae (talk) 02:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Pretty much what I was expecting. What is wrong with them? Szzuk (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What is wrong with them has been explained. If you're not going to look at the arguments for deletion, why vote here? Srnec (talk) 04:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't assume I had no point. My comment was very pointed. Nominator is wasting our time, it's an obvious keep. I suggest he uses something other than Wikipedia:I just don't like it before bringing a dozen articles to afd. Is that better? Now I have nothing else to say. Szzuk (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I make it twenty-five articles, actually. Opera hat (talk) 22:44, 6 May 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't really lists, they are data tables. Wikipedia has data tables, but the expectation is that the data be supported by the citation of reliable sources (either directly or indirectly via links to pages containing such) just like everything else in Wikipedia. Collapsed below is the first section of Countess of Eu, one of the pages up for consideration. As suggested by Cynwolfe, I have marked everything that is lacking a reliable source on Wikipedia (I looked at all of the linked pages to see if a source was given on those pages). You can see the result for yourself. It amounts to every single piece of information. I am not saying it is all wrong, or all unreliable, (I do know that some of the details are just plain made up), but it fails abysmally WP:RS. (I have since deleted the ridiculously anachronistic heraldry from the original page.) Agricolae (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture	Name	Father	Birth	Marriage	Became Countess	Ceased to be Countess	Death	Spouse
Geoffrey of Brionne's wife is not mentioned by name.^{[citation needed]}
	Gunnora d'Aunou^{[citation needed]}	-	-	1012^{[citation needed]}	1015^{[citation needed]} husband's accession	1040^{[citation needed]} husband's accession	-	Gilbert of Brionne
^{[citation needed]}	Lesceline of Harcourt^{[citation needed]}	Turquetil of Harcourt, Lord of Tourville^{[citation needed]} (Harcourt)	-	-	1040^{[citation needed]} husband's accession	1057^{[citation needed]} husband's death	26 January 1057/58^{[citation needed]}	William I
^{[citation needed]}	Adela, Countess of Soissons^{[citation needed]}	Renaud, Count of Soissons^{[citation needed]}	1042^{[citation needed]}	1058^{[citation needed]}		1077^{[citation needed]} husband's death	1079 or 1105^{[citation needed]}	William Busac
Vacant (1077–1080)^{[citation needed]}
	Beatrice^{[citation needed]}	-	-	-	1080^{[citation needed]} husband's accession	on April 10, ?^{[citation needed]}		Robert I
^{[citation needed]}	Matilda of Sicily^{[citation needed]}	Roger I of Sicily^{[citation needed]} (Hauteville)	1062^{[citation needed]}	before 1080^{[citation needed]}		before 1080^{[citation needed]} repudiated^{[citation needed]}	before 1094^{[citation needed]}	Robert I
	Beatrice de Builly^{[citation needed]}	-	1064^{[citation needed]}	-	1091^{[citation needed]} husband's accession	-		William II
	Helisende d'Avranches^{[citation needed]}	Richard Goz, Visount of Avranches^{[citation needed]}	-	-		January 1096^{[citation needed]} husband's death	-	William II
	Matilda^{[citation needed]}	-	-	-	January 1096^{[citation needed]} husband's accession	30 Mar 1107 or before^{[citation needed]}		Henry I
	Ermentrude^{[citation needed]}	-	-	-		17/24 April ?^{[citation needed]}		Henry I
^{[citation needed]}	Margaret of Sully^{[citation needed]}	William, Count of Sully^{[citation needed]} (Blois)	1105^{[citation needed]}	about 1122^{[citation needed]}		12 July 1140^{[citation needed]} husband's death	15 December 1145^{[citation needed]}
	Alice d'Aubigny^{[citation needed]}	William d'Aubigny, 1st Earl of Arundel^{[citation needed]}	-	-	12 July 1140^{[citation needed]} husband's accession	26 Jun 1170^{[citation needed]} husband's death	11 September 1188^{[citation needed]}	John I
^{[citation needed]}	Matilda de Warenne^{[citation needed]}	Hamelin de Warenne, 5th Earl of Surrey^{[citation needed]}	-	-	26 Jun 1170^{[citation needed]} husband's accession	12 or 16/17 July 1190/91^{[citation needed]} husband's death	before 13 December 1228^{[citation needed]}	Henry II

I am constantly offended by everything that spew out of your mouth. Don't accuse me of making things up! I get them off genealogical sites. I am sorry that history isn't crystal clear to your liking, but some information don't exist and historians guess dates when it comes to some dates. No articles on Wikipedia is that cited. You can't cite every date and every name on these articles and have thousands of reference footnotes. It's not the job of these list to be cited. It's the job of the articles themselves to be cited. Examples: List of Governors of Monagas, Lists of monarchs in the British Isles, List of rulers of Provence, List of rulers of Lorraine and List of rulers of Saxony and many and many more.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not accusing you of making things up. I am stating that some of the material in that table is made up. Just as an example: that Lesceline of Harcourt used a coat of arms with two gold bars on red IS MADE UP. By you, by someone else, it doesn't matter to me. At the time that she lived, nobody in Europe used coats of arms. Nobody! As to citations, no, you don't need to have a separate citation for every single fact, but you do need to have at least one reliable citation from which you derived every single fact. The information in Wikipedia pages is to be derived from reliable sources. This is one of the pillars of Wikipedia. If it all came from the same source, then that's just one cite, but if each datum comes from a different source, well, then yes, each one needs to be cited. (And if any scholar cared about such trivia, you would already have a published reliable list of these people that you could reference with a single citation.) An editor can't just absolve themself of this responsibility by calling the product a "list". If it is just a list of page links (like Lists of monarchs in the British Isles which you mention), then the reader can, must even, go to those pages to find both the data and its source. That is not what is going on with the pages in question here. These pages are directly providing information, a whole lot of information, not found anywhere else on Wikipedia and not likely to be, ever. There is not a single countess in that section of Countess of Eu that will likely ever merit their own page, not one, and to say that you don't have to have a source for the information because it is the responsibility of these non-existent pages just doesn't cut it. Likewise, the fact that you can find some sloppy pages (e.g. List of Governors of Monagas) that give uncited information doesn't mean that this pillar of Wikipedia is no longer operative. There are bad Wikipedia pages, and that is why there are processes to improve them or remove them. If you want to link to pages, link to pages. If you want to 'add value' by giving information not found on a page, that new information is subject to the same standard as new information anywhere else - reliable sourcing. Agricolae (talk) 02:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, did you notice that table has Beatrice, first wife of Robert I, becoming consort in 1080 at her husbands' accession, followed by his second wife, Matilda, who became consort before 1080, and was also repudiated before that date. The second wife was married to him and divorced before the first wife, and before he became count yet is still listed as countess. What's with that? This is what comes of not having reliable sources for the information presented, and it could take hours per each date to track them down and see which are good and which not (it wouldn't surprise me if better than 95% of given birth dates before about 1100 are bogus) - more time than the tables are worth for lists owing their collective importance to inherited notability (i.e. "if Rulers of X are worth listing, then Anyone who Ever Married a Ruler of X are also worth listing"). Agricolae (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may well have "got them off genealogical sites", but the vast majority of genealogical sites would not be valid under WP:SPS. Many other wikipedia articles are not adequately sourced, yes, but that is not an excuse. Opera hat (talk) 22:51, 6 May 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. J04n(talk page) 05:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rodoljub Vulović

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

WP:N Unable to find reliable, secondary sources which provide in-depth coverage of this musical artist under Roman or Cyrillic renderings of his name. Videos, a lyric listing, some videos, but insufficient coverage to reach WP:GNG that I could find, and no claims of notability under WP:MUSICBIO. Additional sources welcome as always. joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete nothing in English in gnews nor in Cyrillic [32]. it doesn't even meet WP:V. LibStar (talk) 08:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Plenty of other language info but none of it appears to be the reliable kind. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 6 May 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 consensus and per CSD G11. This is a resume not an article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

József Nyíri

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

Profile for non-notable business-man. Not even an article. Damiens.rf 15:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot see any extraordinary thing about József Nyíri from the article.-- CrossTempleJay talk 20:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - nothing to indicate notability. . . Mean as custard (talk) 13:40, 10 May 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Bangkok

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other SNG. No nontrivial GNews or GBooks hits. No multiple-year award noms, no awards. No reliable/nonpromotional sourcing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I found said that she was nominated for the awards cited in the article, but I just looked at the links again and it looks like that info was taken away for some reason. I can look into it some more when I get home from work, but if I can't find anything reliable, I won't lose sleep over a deletion. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 00:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, wait a minute...wouldn't this qualify as a major award? It's an AVN nomination from its official site (I guess they list their nominees via PDF files now). Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 09:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Only nominations, not actual awards won. WP:PORNBIO requires multiple nominations in different years; so the subject fails the specific SNG, and WP:ANYBIO requires that the subject "often" be nominated, so the claim there is similarly insufficient. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Looks like she was also nominated in 2009. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 16:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Given that, I'm willing to withdraw the nomination without prejudice toward future relisting. I don't know that categories like "Unsung Siren" should really be construed as indicating notability; they can fairly be interpreted as something like "not actually notable, doesn't really have coverage, but ought to be more famous" -- not a standard we accept in most other contexts. But this AFD as it stands isn't a good place to have that sort of discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Erpert's detective work.SPNic (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Erpert's work.--Johnsmith877 (talk) 13:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep thanks to Erpert's work.--Cavarrone (talk) 10.59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect. Sprinting faster (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Developmental abnormality

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

This would need to be deleted unless it is expanded an awful lot; the subject is OK but the article just needs expansion... Otherwise it is pointless. Rcsprinter^{Gimme a message} 15:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason for deletion. See WP:BEFORE. -Atmoz (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral If the article can be expanded it will make for excellent reading but in its current state, it hardly offers any insight into the topic save the pictures on display. I will inform the author about my suggestion. CrossTempleJay talk 22:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Congenital abnormality. Boghog (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (if there is anything salvageable) and redirect as per Boghog. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anybody who supports this can contact my on my talk page when/if we have consensus on this. We can work to find anything worth merging and do it. Rcsprinter^{Gimme a message} 07:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Marijuana. No clear merge consensus, so redirecting to allow later merging from the history subject to editorial consensus. Sandstein 07:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marijuana and Inequality

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

Essay. Title may or may not be salvageable, but with this essay in place, I don't believe anyone will work on it. Better to have no article for now. delete - UtherSRG (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC) UtherSRG (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my delete suggestion and support Diego's merge. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an essay and merely presents the criteria showing inequal treatment via marijuana policy. No view from the author is include. Use of relevant sources produce this knowledge. Various media outlets portray the inequalities between users and enforcement. See New York Times, Huffington Post and the LA Times. Keep, noting cleanup. Am6015 (talk) 16:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also withdraw my keep suggestion and support Diego's merge. Am6015 (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These are important issues, but I am confident (knowing WP) that they are well covered already in other articles. The author of this article should be encouraged to keep contributing. And to check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Cannabis. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject is suitable but as this stands it is original research. I didn't review the references but the work is remarkable, and as Steve Dufour mentioned there surely must be several places where a lot of this information would be useful, or even this same article if it is properly manufactured, so perhaps this could be userfied instead - frankieMR (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The numerous sources seem reliable and redaction has good quality. Each section in this is good and well-sourced content for Wikipedia, they just don't belong all together under an article with title "Marijuana and Inequality". Move each section to the relevant article about Marijuana - History, prohibition, controversies... Diego Moya (talk) 00:38, 7 May 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 NAC - speedily deleted per A7 by User:Boing! said Zebedee. ukexpat (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rosetta Walker

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

Constested speedy. Self-promoting autobiography of non-notable musician. No evidence the subject satisfies the general notability guideline, WP:BIO or WP:MUSICBIO. No reliable sources, only WP:SELFPUB, Facebook, Twitter, lastfm, MySpace etc etc -- the usual. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete — Per nomination. Should have been speedily deleted under CSD A7, but speedy deletion template keeps getting deleted by page creator and possible sockpuppet (SPI investigation here). — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obvious self-promotion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - per A7, retagged as such. ukexpat (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May have trouble getting the tag to stick. See ANI report here. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. – ukexpat (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until the user is blocked, then you can re-add it without interference. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prediction fulfilled. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as per A7 - Contested speedy deletion reason on Talk page was not adequate -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:19, 5 May 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Meshkati

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHit and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. fails [[WP:BIO\\, not notable. either self-serving or a bit of an attack page, or maybe both. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I do not know about the award from the magazine, but if that is all he as achieved then I think it should go.-- CrossTempleJay talk 20:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 06:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 6 May 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 Alex Gargolas. Does not meet WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG. Redirect to Alex Gargolas SilkTork *^{Tea time} 23:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gargolas, Vol. 3 (Alex Gargolas album)

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

Album with no evidence of notability. Albacore (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Albacore (talk) 11:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep major retailers sell the album, but few reviews. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was about to say merge to artist article per WP:NALBUM, but is Alex Gargolas notable? Because there is no indication of it in the article. If not, then all those articles, Alex Gargolas and his albums, should be up for deletion, not just this one.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 17:33, 19 April 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) 00:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I don't see much point in nominating just one of his numeous albuls like this. Either he's notable or not and that should determine whether the albums stay or go. I'm inclined to say he's at least slightly notable, as a major label subsidiary released this compilation with his name in the title as a selling point, so he's not a total nobody. Still needs major sourcing and so on, but there's a hint that there's some core of notability there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:58, 26 April 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 14:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - per HHaeyyn89.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:31, 5 May 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) 01:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasiya Sienina

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

no significant third party coverage as indicated by 1 gnews hit [33]. the sources provided are modelling websites not totally independent of the competitions mentioned. winning Miss Crimea is hardly a notable thing nor is coming in top 5 of Miss Earth. if she won Miss Earth then there is a claim of notability. LibStar (talk) 08:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes ONEEVENT, won the 2-runner up title in Miss Ukraine then she was crowned Miss Crimea. First Miss Crimea to compete internationally at any pageant worldwide. Many other articles here on pageant girls which even didnt place at all so no real significant reasoning concerning the result. also being the first woman from crimea makes it notable. this source providing actual proof that she competed in Miss Earth is actually in my opinion enough to establish notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nor is coming in top 5 of Miss Earth. if she won Miss Earth then there is a claim of notability. - Please, if that was true.. proceed to place every single beauty pageant participant article for AFD. Start with Miss Universe 2011 and work your way trough. Seems like a strawman argument to me. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

every AfD is assessed on its merits. you're using an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. LibStar (talk) 07:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im not buying that.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Winning a pageant that sends the person on to one of the three major international beauty pageants (in this case Miss Earth) equals notability to me. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 14:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that is not a criterion for notability. please address how she meets WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 07:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Winning a national-level beauty pageant then participating and placing highly in a major international pageant arguably satisfies criterion #1 of WP:ENT. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 12:46, 22 April 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) 13:33, 26 April 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 14:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with Mbinebri. The subject's achievements in the Miss Crimea and Miss Ukraine pageants and being a representative in a major international beauty pageant meets criterion #1 of WP:ENT.--Richie Campbell (talk) 01:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let Yourself Go: The '70s Albums, Vol. 2: 1974-1977 - The Final Sessions

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

Quazi-compilation album (new singer, old songs) that hasn't been released. Searched but didn't find any reliable sources. At this stage, would appear to fail WP:NALBUMS as not sourced or source-able. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This article is still coming together as of this writing; the track-listing has now been added, via a reliable source, and is well on its way of further improvement. I've already pre-ordered my copy off of Amazon.com! Thanks. Best, --Discographer (talk) 19:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Can you please provide a citation from a reliable source that is talking about the album? One good citation discussing the album in detail, from a main stream publication that isn't selling it and passes WP:RS is all it takes for me to withdraw, happily. I searched extensively and couldn't find one. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many of The Supremes compilation albums has no no citation from a reliable source that is talking about the album. Go ahead and delete this article and all those too. Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Other articles do not matter in this AFD. They may actually be notable, as they have been around a while. This one doesn't yet exist. The other Supremes albums also had Diana Ross singing, this one doesn't, and it yet to demonstrate notability. But you did answer the question, that none exist, so thanks for that.Dennis Brown (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There currently are four other non-Diana Ross Supremes era albums that are linked as articles, so what makes this inferior to those others? Also, judging against the post-Diana Ross Supremes is being biased, as you've stated above in that Diana Ross does not sing on this album. What does it matter who sings lead? By the way, this new album does exists, and it will be available to have in less than one month. Best, --Discographer (talk) 02:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Please read WP:ATA. The arguments you are making are textbook examples of non-arguments in an AFD. I know you mean well by it, but they are not reasons to keep an article. They are reasons to either find citations or send the other articles to AFD. In particular, the fact that other articles exist without citations is covered in WP:WAX. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a reference from MTV - [34] Best, --Discographer (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The link you provided does not list that album. Even if it did, that would only be incidental mention that it exists, not proof of notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, how about this -

Best, --Discographer (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One is AOL's incidental mention by listing tracks, the other is a blog. Both fail WP:RS. Not a problem to have them worked into the article (maybe) if the subject matter was already shown to be notable, but it isn't. These might demonstrate that it EXISTS, but not that it is notable. Not trying to be difficult, but if you keep presenting links that don't talk about the album at all, or just show a track listing but don't talk about it, or simply wouldn't be considered a reliable source by anyone's definition, I don't have a choice but to reply. It exists, that is known. The problem is that no reliable source seems to know or care, or at least taken the time to write about it. Maybe they will, and on that day, I would be happy if someone started the article. Otherwise, to assume it *will be* notable violates WP:CRYSTALBALL. Seriously, I would be happy to withdraw if I saw a SINGLE solid article on the album for a website or paper that even barely passed WP:RS criteria. I removed two links already that linked to "buy here" websites (I know you added them in good faith, but those are generally not allowed) I would suggest creating a subpage on your user page, copy it over, and maybe some day it will be notable. Maybe. Dennis Brown (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, when deleting this article, very importantly, be sure to delete EVERY post-1979 Supremes compilation album also, OR this does not get deleted. Easy peasy. Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bring that up with the closing administrator. I'm just the nominator. The nominator can't close or delete an article that he nominates. Prevents abuse. Of course, Wikipedia doesn't work that way, but you can still bring it to his attention or nominate them yourself. Dennis Brown (talk) 21:23, 21 April 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, postdlf (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Conditionally - It's obvious the only thing tying this to The Supremes are a minor cast of semi-notable associates, so noteworthiness is scarce to none. This article doesn't deserve a "press page", in a sense, because there's obviously very little interest in it outside of those promoting it. Delete for now, remake 1) After it is released and 2) If it has gotten enough independent reviews to actually be considered a notable release in relation to The Supremes. Crtrue —Preceding undated comment added 11:07, 27 April 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, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 14:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Though it is the Supremes, the release is just a box set of three relatively unsuccessful albums by the group, and hence really only targeted towards fans. I don't think such a compilation needs an article of its own.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:08, 11 May 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Street Artist Movie

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

Non-notable film lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nn film from a promotional account - article creator has done nothing but spam Wikipedia with additions about Ailgif Studios. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam and as film that does not meet notability as there is no coverage about it in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither film nor company have any sourcable notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not in any way show notability, and its tone is purely promotional.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeds of Africa Foundation

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

No evidence of notability Teapotgeorge^Talk 13:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and edited entirely by single purpose accounts.Teapotgeorge^Talk 14:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reluctantly. Sounds like a worthwhile organization, but appears to fail WP:Notability (organizations and companies). The little press coverage it's had is brief, and it appears to be in the fundraising-and-launch stage. Might be notable a year from now. Mr. Credible (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks the significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to understand the difference between the Seeds of Africa page and the Givology entry, the organization has already raised tens of thousands of dollars to send kids to schools. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinnyc2011 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC) — Martinnyc2011 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 19:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joaquin - Coverage in a reliable source can be found at the Huffington Post website as referenced in the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinnyc2011 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coverage can be found at Huffington Post as well as an independent newspaper, both referenced on the entry page. Foundation is fully operational and deploying capital to students. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.219.88.140 (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG. nothing in gnews [35]. LibStar (talk) 02:16, 10 May 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 05:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hydration for Health Initiative

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

This is a promotional website for Danone. All the references in the article support claims unrelated to the organisation itself - that is, they support claims which could readily be merged to dehydration or other articles. There are no mentions of this initiative in Google News, and I can't find any reliable sources discussing this topic in scholarly works, journals, or books. Most hits on search engines are related to the site itself, Danone-related sites, or sites marketing it. Mind matrix 13:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. The sourcing in the article consist of a primary source (the initiative's web site), and a bunch of sources confirming general information about hydration versus information about the web site. -- Whpq (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in gnews, gbooks nor gscholar. LibStar (talk) 07:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is nothing more than commercial product promotion for Danone disguised as an encylopedic article; no mention in reliable sources such as academic or trade journals,--Hokeman (talk) 02:36, 12 May 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 07:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amphetamines and Friendly Fire Incidents

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

Previously CSd'd. It appears to be a (well disguised?) position paper. delete - UtherSRG (talk) 13:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC) UtherSRG (talk) 13:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The previous CSD was not due (directly) to content - it was an author blanking CSD, after it was pointed out that the article was problematic in its then-reference-less state. (I was the one who both called for the deletion after author blanking and had pointed author to the problem.) In other words, both the previous deletion and the primary reason for the blanking no longer apply. That's not to take any stance on the deletion discussion, just to take the weight off of the "previously CDS'd" status. -Nat Gertler (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV fork of Tarnak Farm incident Nick-D (talk) 08:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly redirect: sure seems to be a fork per Nick, not to mention some SYNTH/OR, and essentially being an essay. There might be some material worth keeping, if merged to Tarnak Farm incident and/or Amphetamine (I can't find an article on military use of stimulant drugs, but if there were, that would be the best place to redirect). There might also be value as a redirect... bahamut0013^words _deeds 20:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is being discussed at AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#University_project_creating_new.2C_deliberate_POV_forks. Kevin (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userify if so requested by user; plain delete if not. We should not be keeping this simply to fulfill a non-Wikipedia (arguably anti-Wikipedia) aim, but userification would generally be allowed for an article of this degree of effort, to allow a user to see if he can transform it into something appropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:26, 13 May 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) Baseball Watcher 21:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin T. Wood

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

Previously CSD'd. Still doesn't seem to fully pass notability. delete' - UtherSRG (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC) UtherSRG (talk) 13:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still, the article has some relevance and asserts some importance. It do believe it does marginally meet the requirments of an article. Shakinglord (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This guy is an architect. He designed Xintiandi amongst other works. Per WP:CREATIVE point 3, he has played a major role in the creation of a significant, well-known work. -- Whpq (talk) 15:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources referenced in the article establish notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Il lusciato

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

Previously CSD'd twice. Recreated with essentially no changes. delete - UtherSRG (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC) UtherSRG (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

edited frequently and encompassing a notable personality/figure witha large presence on the internet and otherwise. Notable not only by BMI representation, but through notable pop culture phenomena such as viral youtube impact, internet impact and social impact. Although smaller scale - distributed through acceptable companies and mediums, with notable reception and exposure. Information on well-attainable and often encountered figures and/or media/works etc. should be provided for viewing as a part of web-wide multi-faceted free encyclopedia, as long as article in question address's non-obscure subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnbergen64 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Pubished in BMI (cited) published as recognized by allmusic.com artist i.d. - P 934870 under "rap" genre. quick search turns up with much information, sites, and distributed music/information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Applebottom89445 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 19:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:08, 12 May 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even Now Tour

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

Per WP:CONCERT, non-notable tours of notable bands don't deserve articles. Also, this fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:56, 20 April 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, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any notable content with Barry Manilow. CycloneGU (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 27 April 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, Baseball Watcher 12:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 03:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An Innocent Man Tour

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

Per WP:CONCERT, non-notable tours of notable bands don't deserve articles. Also, this fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am shocked that more sourced can't be found. This was a pretty significant tour, and he was at the top of his game at the time. Are we just not looking in the right places? Tried adding his name to the term, and found very little. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the later references. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:50, 5 May 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, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: One of the "hottest" concert tours in 1984.[36]. Added more bare URLs of full article reviews from the tour to the article.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 27 April 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, Baseball Watcher 12:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Milowents comment.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:36, 5 May 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From The Inside Tour

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

Per WP:CONCERT, non-notable tours of notable bands don't deserve articles. Also, this fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:53, 20 April 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, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 27 April 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, Baseball Watcher 12:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. no reliable coverage found. LibStar (talk) 14:32, 8 May 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Time Tour

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

Per WP:CONCERT, non-notable tours of notable bands don't deserve articles. Also, this fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:52, 20 April 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, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 27 April 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, Baseball Watcher 12:48, 5 May 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tusk Tour

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

Tusk tour is a non-notable tour of a notable band per WP:CONCERT. They did record an album, Live (Fleetwood Mac album) during the tour, but there is little coverage of the tour beyond that (note, neither the live album, nor the tour mention this fact). The article consists primarily of tour dates, which goes against WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was a well-covered and controversial tour by one of the most popular bands in the world at the time. Here's some hits from a 1979-1980 date-limited GNews search[37], including these Robert Hilburn pieces[38][39], this one by Marilyn Beck[40]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Don't forget that this tour was in relation to the Fleetwood Mac album, Tusk, and so many of those gNews hits are in relation to the album - only briefly mentioning the tour, like the first Hilburn and the Beck source. I would say that the other source is a review of a concert, and fail to see how the tour was controversial or notable in any other way. Worm^TT · (talk) 07:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 27 April 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, Baseball Watcher 12:47, 5 May 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 whether or not provided sourcing meets the GNG. lifebaka++ 05:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pyro Desktop

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

can't find any notibility or enough coverage Alan - talk 00:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to lack detailed coverage in reliable, independent sources, and therefore does not meet the GNG. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 03:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the only thing I've really got on this is one eWeek article, so it's up to the discretion of the closing admin if this project meets wp:GNG. in my opinion, it would. riffic (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And something else from ars technica. riffic (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the only valid AfD in an obvious case of wikihounding. LiteralKa (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to apparent retaliation, of which I was not aware, that can be dealt with somewhere else. What matters on this page is whether or not the article meets the criteria for deletion. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 19:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, references are valid and article meets wp:GNG, nom made a few other POINTy deletion nominations against articles I've created in an apparant attempt to retaliate against previous deletion discussions, in violation of deletion policy. Evidence can be presented if requested. riffic (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, just meets GNG. LiteralKa (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am curious on what basis we are seeing other suggestions to keep, given the distinct lack of coverage from multiple third party sources. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

your claim is untrue, multiple third party sources are provided and the coverage provided by them satisfies WP:GNG. riffic (talk) 04:13, 3 May 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, Baseball Watcher 12:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Covered by reliable, independent source material which are already in the article. Steven Walling 00:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although the recent references added are good, I think that they may not be enough. Anything more recent to show that this software actually had an effect? Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and redirect to Hiromu Arakawa. There is no prejudice against recreation should more information become available. lifebaka++ 05:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Spoon (manga)

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

No significant coverage by reliable third-party sources beyond standard announcements. Fails both WP:BK and WP:NOTE. Just because the author is famous for one work doesn't automatically denote notability to all her other works. "anyone really think won't be a success?" is just a WP:CRYSTALBALL as the manga has only released one chapter so far. —Farix (t | c) 13:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 13:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hiromu Arakawa. Even if this manga doesn't get enough coverage to meet WP:N redirects are cheep. – Allen4names 14:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to its author. Only on chapter out so not even a collected volume out in Japan. It's way to soon for this work to be notable enough for an article. --KrebMarkt (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hiromu Arakawa. I see no harm in making this into a redirect, the author seems to be notable for other titles and this could be a potential title search by a reader. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see that Farix has - yet again - decided that it's somehow easier to put an article up for AfD rather than use my CSE (which I provided in my edit summary!)

Ritual (and useless) expression of disgust with the utter ovine fecklessness of my fellow editors aside, let's look at the results. To relive my tedium at going through this rigmarole, imagine the following read in the voice of the Count from Sesame Street. 1 RS, 2 RSes, 3 RSes, 4 RSes, ah ha ha ha, 5 RSes, ah ha ha ha.

And of course, I only need 3 or so, but 5 makes my point. (And then there are the Japanese hits. But they don't count because they're not, y'know, written in English. Come on, Japanese people, how can we take seriously domains like 'livedoor.biz' as we contemplate this very srs business?) --Gwern (contribs) 16:12 26 April 2011 (GMT)

@Gwern All those sources say "Well, the author is working on XYZ new series" all repeating one another. It doesn't go beyond that which is not enough to get a safe keep. I see this as a variant WP:Oneevent applied to the least brainchild manga of a notable mangaka. Whatever it will receive coverage beyond existence acknowledgment remains to be seen even if it's likely to happen. --KrebMarkt (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether they are 'repeating one another'. Nowhere in the GNG or anime/manga guidelines do they say 'unless someone decides the articles are of similar content in some way' or Farix's novel claim 'beyond standard announcements', because that would be obviously stupid and bar things like multiple reviews of a movie from showing notability (as WP:MOVIE explicitly says can show notability) - because reviews will tend to repeat each other...

I have shown 5 RSs which are 'independent' of the subject (Arakawa & the manga), which are substantial 'significant' coverage of a topic & which are not merely mentions in articles on other topics, and which serve to reference the assertions in the article text. If the notability guidelines mean anything, this AfD is done. --Gwern (contribs) 20:33 26 April 2011 (GMT)

An announcement is not significant coverage. Even if the announcement is repeated by 500 sources, It is still not amount to significant coverage because all the coverage put together does not address the subject in detail. Depth of coverage is the difference between an announcement and a review. As for deletion vs. redirect. I don't think redirection is the best answer. Easier to do, but not the best. A new editor attempting to recreate the article may become confused about a redirect if and when the subject does pass WP:NOTE or WP:BK. —Farix (t | c) 13:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least KrebMarkt can admit she's making up notability guidelines. You just repeat yours. These RSs are not the announcement. They are reliable secondary sources who regard the announcement as so significant - so notable - that it's worth publishing on. That's their editorial job, to decide what of the innumerable press releases and announcements are important, and that is what they have done.

And then your anti-redirect point... gosh, it's good for new editors that Farix is looking out for their best interests! Yes, clearly deleting the page entirely so they will want to write an entire amateurish new article is better than redirecting them to a section in the Arakawa article. (Of course, a merge is a better idea than a redirect/wikideletion, since the new editors will see that the topic has been addressed and will have a better starting point than absolutely nothing. Her current fulltime job - Silver Spoon - would be an important part of her biography even if it didn't seem to have substantial autobiographical elements to it.) --Gwern (contribs) 20:58 27 April 2011 (GMT)

Keep A very notable manga writer has a new series, which does get coverage, and the cover of a major manga magazine even. Dream Focus 20:18, 27 April 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, Jujutacular ^talk 12:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because WP standards seem to say that any high profile pop culture project should get its own article. I would prefer they say don't write an article until there is something to say about the subject, but that's not what happens here. Even a stub or announcement is useful to interested people.Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Hiromu Arakawa. Notability is not inherited. Should this series become notable, no prejudice against re-ceation later. Edward321 (talk) 01:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect until this manga becomes notable of its own right. As it stands it is a little soon to make an article. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:13, 14 May 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 do not delete, with no consensus between merge and keep positions in this AfD. lifebaka++ 05:54, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a Peace-Loving Global Citizen

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

Poor sourcing does not establish the notability of this book. Nor is there enough substantial information for an article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to a bibliography entry in Sun Myung Moon. No substantive coverage, so nothing really worth merging, beyond the bare fact of its existence. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability was established last time, it's not transient, and AfD isn't used to force clean-up. There are 6 sources in a reasonably short article which is sufficient, nor am I seeing any of the sources really being poor. The Washington times and two large daily korean news organizations to start. 2 articles entirely devoted to the subject are usually all we require to meet the threshold for significant coverage by a reliable third party source, combined with the books presence on top seller lists. all this information is extremely obvious. The only thing that has changed is that there are now nearly 200 news articles from major korean news agencies mentioning the book [41].--Crossmr (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also point out this source [42] which indicates that the book has sold over 1 million copies and has become a topic of daily conversation. Can't get any more notable than when a reliable sources spells it out.--Crossmr (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Notability is well established, but an article is just unnecessary - frankieMR (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If notability is established, then an article can exist. The basis for this proposal was notability.--Crossmr (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the proposal could've been to merge from the beginning, but it ended up here - frankieMR (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a concurrent merge proposal as well. It seems a lot like a "We want it gone, let's throw a bunch of stuff at it and see what sticks". Both proposals cite notability as their reasoning and with notability established there is little reason for either proposal to go ahead. A lack of content in the current article is not a reason for merge. Merge is usually done for non-notable topics that have been split off from or created in addition to a main subject.--Crossmr (talk) 00:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point about content that gets forked, but reversely notability doesn't force it to become separated. In this case, claim of the subject's significance is limited to pretty much its sales and rankings, which are indeed remarkable, and that may be easily covered at Sun Myung Moon - frankieMR (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but one could say if the book didn't sell well, no one would talk or write about it. One reliable source noted that the book was so popular that it was a topic of daily conversation. While the same article also noted that it had sold over a million copies, the assertion goes beyond simply relying on sales. Setting a record is also different from simply saying the book sold X copies. As to the content, we're back to WP:DEADLINE and the status quou. Since the assertion made here to change that was that it isn't notable, and if that is false, then there is no reason to change it. I'm all for deleting non-notable stuff, see my history. I've nominated and recommended deletion on many things that would be considered inside my area of interest, and even things I've liked, but weren't appropriate for wikipedia. However, this is a subject which is controversial, and it would seem some people are trying to pull a snow-job on an article which simply hasn't had enough attention vs one that actually shouldn't be here. Those are two entirely different things. Wikipedia is perfectly okay with having stubs all over the place, so one more on a clearly notable subject is perfectly fine as well. Someday, someone will flesh out the article, perhaps if I can improve my Korean further, I can pull up some more in depth sources on the subject as well, and make something of the article.--Crossmr (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you mostly, and my decision is a bit borderline on this matter. Given the existence of the merge proposal this AfD is a bit disruptive, perhaps the best would be to close this until the merge is resolved, and after that article may be renominated if notability remains in question - frankieMR (talk) 15:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I would agree that this AfD is probably unnecessary given the existing merge proposal, I don't think it is harmful, so should be allowed to proceed. For one thing it opens up discussion of the future of this article to a wider audience, and thus allows a wider consensus on it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My only concern with that is for the merge proposal to result in a merger and the AfD as a keep, or viceversa, but I guess the closing admin(s) will be taking this circumstance into account - frankieMR (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that in the first AfD notability was merely asserted, not established. The only source presented was naver.com, which is at best a mediocre source (being simply a portal/aggregator), does not provide much depth of coverage nor appears to act as a WP:SECONDARY source offering interpretation or analysis. Additionally, a lot of the coverage referred to appears to be on Moon generally, not the autobiography specifically. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that that is an out and out lie. Naver was not the only source provided in the first AfD. I did link to naver to show the fact that there were many news stories covering the book. This particularly story actually comes from Newsis, not naver, it's just on a naver link [43], None of these stories are from naver, and were all presented at the first AfD [44], [45], [46]. You're now going through and trying to tag the article to death, and taken your blatant misrepresentation here, it's beginning to look a little pointy.--Crossmr (talk) 05:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(i) Please demonstrate that newsis.com is a WP:RS (I can find no information on it). (ii) Please explain why "none of these stories" (only one of which was cited in the original AfD) are from an independent source, but are in fact from a UC subsidiary. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Demonstrate it's not. You're unlikely to find much English information on a Korean news agency. [47]. They're a news organization like any other and they've been around for 10 years. [48] they seem to have relationships with several major news providers like associated press reuters, etc. you're now just grasping at straws.--Crossmr (talk) 07:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it's just a puff-piece on the English launch, it's really not worth my while bothering. Not so much "grasping at straws" as trying to put the last nails in the coffin. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion and nothing more. Whether the piece is a "puff" piece, or not is irrelevant. What's relevant is that the news organizations dedicated an article to the subject. Trivial coverage, is usually meant to indicate coverage in which a subject is only name dropped and little else. For example a larger article on religious movements that simply said something like "...like the unification church started by moon in Korea" would be trivial coverage. An entire article dedicated to the subject, regardless of content, is not trivial. Absolutely nowhere in the guideline that you're clinging to does it say that the sources must provide in depth analytic coverage to be considered non-trivial. These aren't simply price listings indicating the book is on sale.--Crossmr (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Notability explicitly requires sources that "address the subject directly in detail" -- a piece only on the launch of the English version fails this. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the full statement, address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. It only requires that the detail be enough that the information can be garnered without using original research. It also goes on to say Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. It's quite clear that 'trivial' is referring exactly to what I described, and these sources are more than trivial.--Crossmr (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of the current fully independent sources: [49] a detailed piece by the joong-ang daily on some of the history around the book, [50], a very long and detailed article on the book, [51], [52], two articles specifically about the book and details on it, [53] another lengthy article talking about the book, and the newsis article here [54]. All of these are non-trivial articles written about the book.--Crossmr (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The book clearly has enough notability to be mentioned but the reader is best served by merging this to the article on Sun Myung Moon. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I probably should have taken more time to express the nomination. The real problem is lack of content, not so much notability. If you take out the story in the Unification Church owned Washington Times and the commentary on that by conspiracy theorist blogger Robert Parry the article could be boiled down to two sentences: That the book is Moon's autobiography (obviously the story of his life as told by himself -- the article takes a section to say just that) and that it has sold over a million copies in South Korea. That information could (and should already) be in Moon's own article since that would be an important event in anyone's life. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should withdraw your nomination. Lack of content is not a valid reason for AfD, see WP:DEADLINE.--Crossmr (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lack of significant discussion in reliable secondary sources independent of its subject. -- Cirt (talk) 03:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See the 6 fully independent sources I just listed above, 3 of which are very extensive articles on the subject.[55], [56], [57] [58] [59] [60] all wholly independent all non-trivial.--Crossmr (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Moon is a well-known person whose actions are reported on by newsmedia worldwide. The article needs more material from reviews of the book, but notability of the book seems to be established from the sources Cossmr has provided. Note that about half the article is sourced to a blog article written by someone who does not seem to have read the book itself but is using the Washington Times article to rant about how the "Moonies" and the "neocons" are working together, probably to take over the world or something like that. Borock (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional article written primarily based on self-published sources. I also would call into question the exceptional claims made by certain Korean news sources, can we demonstrate that they are, in fact, not associated with Moon? BelloWello (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The burden would be on you to demonstrate they are. There is no evidence the UC owns any of the news organizations I provided. and sorry, but your claim doesn't hold water. Of the 8 sources in the article, only 2 are primary sources. So it is not written primarily on self-published sources. Though I'd seriously question the motives of anyone who deemed the contents of a book unimportant for it's inclusion on an article about that book.--Crossmr (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. User:Crossmr has shown that there are enough reliable sources to prove notability, as required by the general notability guidelines. Foreign language sources may exist. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of AP classes

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

Surely this is too subjective and ambiguous a list to have any encyclopedic value? First of all, AP could stand for more things than advanced placement and secondly, the inclusion of APs vary from school to school. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 10:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —:| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 10:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Redirect - I have no more idea than I did before I viewed the page what an AP class is. Unless this is actually notable in some way then it needs to be deleted quickly. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ditto as above; I have not idea what this is about. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The material is well covered in Advanced Placement and related articles. No need for this list.Borock (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - thanks, I've learned something! And, given that there's a list in that article, I'd say this was a speedy delete. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This looks more like a list of Advanced Placement classes offered at a particular school rather than a comprehensive list of all AP exams. Even if it were to be expanded to be comprehensive, such a list would be redundant with Template:Advanced Placement, which already appears on all AP exam articles. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Advanced Placement. Plausible search term, and redirects are cheap. Serpent's Choice (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Redundant and inferior to content that is already present in Advanced Placement. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seeing this name, I think of AP series nuclear reactors. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 05:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete scope too broad even if it were not to be subjective/regional, and all AP subjects offered by all schools in the world is listed. Well, the idea of doing that is just absurd. Moray An Par (talk) 12:38, 11 May 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.

Kim Duthie

The result was Delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Pieczenik

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

Credulous bio-page for Alex Jones conspiracy-theory guest; all listed references are to conspiracy websites; all supporters on Talk page are new users who've joined for the sole purpose of defending the article.--Mike18xx (talk) 08:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although most of me wants to scream delete, it also seems like it would be viable to request semi-protection to stop all the damn SPA's from editing it and then prune it down to what facts are verifiable. As a co-author of multiple best-selling books he probably has a viable claim to notability, the article is just trash in it's current state. I'll put in a semiprotection request and then tomorrow I'll edit out all the crap assuming it's gone through. Kevin (talk) 09:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Actually, it occurs to me that a protection request would likely be denied since it hasn't actually been vandalized yet. I'll whirlwind through it and strip it down to the verifiable basics, and will ask for semiprotection tomorrow if the current tripe is put back in. Kevin (talk) 09:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's not a "co-author", as far as I can tell. (As I wrote on the relevant Talk page, Clancy appears to have consulted Pieczenik, then given him 2nd-listing credit for a franchise -- but it appears neither men actually wrote the books themselves, but instead farmed out the writing chores to other men (who, in times past, would have been uncredited "ghost-writers"). Aside from that, Googling Pieczenik reveals almost nothing -- virtually all references to him are 9/11 tin sites promoting the Wikipedia article and the Alex Jones interview. Yet the claim is made that he's this important government insider with a long list of credentials spanning Vietnam to the Reagan Administration!--Mike18xx (talk) 10:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, it looks like you may be right about him not actually having written anything in the Clancy books. It does look like he wrote at least a couple books though, and some of his biographical details may be right. I looked around google for sources, and added anything approximating reliable that I found, but cut out like 95% of his article. Once you start looking at only that which can be reliably sourced, his article looks awful sparse awful fast. I'm gonna have to go with delete. Kevin (talk) 10:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I found a funny! His Wikipedia article is linked from the www.infowars.com/top-us-government-insider-bin-laden-died-in-2001-911-a-false-flag/ ^{infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used} Infowars] article that was cited in the Wikipedia article in an attempt to confirm his bonafides and say that he cannot be dismissed as a conspiracy theorist. That makes the original version of the article here look pretty clearly like it was inserted for promotional purposes to me now. Kevin (talk)

I also suspect his (very brief) IMDB bio-page is similarly fabricated because it contained text passages identical to the now-redacted material here.--Mike18xx (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that no information on his page can be independently verified, the claims to hold a PhD from Harvard can only be verified by viewing his own site and reading what he wrote about himself. I actually checked and looking to see if he's written a dissertation and found nothing, and found no verifiable proof that he ever had any involvement with the US Government. I vote delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.90.86.145 (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC) — 74.90.86.145 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

A quick google news archive search shows articles dating as far back as 1995. Dr. Pieczenik is authentic, to attempt disputing this by simply pointing this ties with Alex Jones is simply irresponsible. Google is your friend. LINK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.122.147 (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC) — 98.253.122.147 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

* KEEP He is credited as "co-creator" in over 25 best-selling books, including Tom Clancy's Op-Center and Tom Clancy's Net Force. Nuf said...--Ducha mps_comb MFA 16:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Co-creator" is advertising slight-of-hand for "ran a production company which promised Clancy a TV show, got him to sign a deal, then farmed out all the writing work to a bunch of stringer." Neither Clancy nor Pieczenik wrote a single word in any of the Op-center franchise novels.--66.41.95.121 (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Weak keep - but watch carefully for poppycock creeping in to the article. After my earlier massive cuts through the article, I did a little bit of source research on my own, and found some stuff. I also tracked down one of the forums that generated the initial flood of WP:SPA's and told them that I would be happy to add any reliable sources that they found. It's going to be a magnet for SPA's and people adding unsourced stuff - from all the conspiracy theory crud it got 15,000 views yesterday - but careful watching should filter out problems related to that, and I think he has pretty decent claim to notability independent of conspiracy theory crud. Kevin (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Just removing it because he's got some visibility due to jone's article is unacceptable. Info just be filtered out depending on what is verifiable, but the page should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echofloripa (talk • contribs) 18:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC) — Echofloripa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep: Co-author/Author of numerous New York Times best selling books. LINK This fact alone makes him notable. -- ĴoeĴohnson|2 18:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He's not the author or co-author of any of the Tom Clancy-branded books in that link. Kevin (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After double checking, I believe you're probably right in this instance. I might have mixed up co-creator with co-author. Vote still stands as keep. -- ĴoeĴohnson|2 19:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I vote keep . Just this discussion alone is a useful source of data in evaluating verity. This guy is getting links from Mainstream media discussion boards - how I came to listen to his bin Laden theories. -- David Camp, May 5, 2011 (what is this html?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmcamp (talk • contribs) 20:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC) — Dmcamp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The fact that someone is massively spammed on the internet after appearing on a conspiracy talk-show does not confer notability. This is particularly the case if the person's credentials have been, shall we say, "embellished"...although I certainly wouldn't have any objection to an article remaining if it is discovered that he's a fraud, and the article indicates so! --Mike18xx (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators may wish to keep an eye on the Op-Center article ...I've edited the authors column to match those credited in the novels themselves (as pic'd on Amazon). Some previous editor had credited Pieczenik with many of them, when, as far as I can tell, Jeff Rovin wrote all of them (including "ghosting" #2,3 and 4 in the series, in which author is not indicated on the book -- I left the author field blanks for those novels). I have made similar edits to the Tom Clancy's Net Force entries. (If someone out there is an Amazon editor, the erroneous "writer" credits on that site should be corrected as well -- it's bad enough when a "ghost-writer" doesn't get credit when his name doesn't appear; it's worse when he's not credited even though his name is right there on the front cover.)--Mike18xx (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators may desire to note that several verifiable sources have been added with citations documenting his career with the United States State Department under President Jimmy Carter. In addition he has several published works with the American Intelligence Journal - this was added as well with citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsviking (talk • contribs) 21:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC) — Hsviking (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

All references linking Amazon listings in support of authorship claims should be deleted unless there is clear evidence (such as a picture of the book indicating such) that he is an actual author. Too many Amazon text-descriptions are erroneous. Same deal with IMDB references.--66.41.95.121 (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to this, so I was unaware that 1) someone being a guest of Alex Jones is automatically considered reason to dismiss him/her as authentic, and 2) that those who are deciding whether he/she is authentic, whether me or someone else, suddenly have more authority than those who originate the piece. -- Jubal tunes

It is not advisable, as a newly-created account, to begin your first post (on a subject dear to your heart) with a misrepresentation of procedure questioning the veracity of the article. Near the top of this page, Kevin referred to "SPA's" - you are one of those.--Mike18xx (talk) 00:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mike18xx, please do not WP:BITE the new guy, you may also want to check your self on WP:OUTING.--Ducha mps_comb MFA 01:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of authority. Wikipedia has a long established set of policies, and AfD is one mechanism by which someone can start a discussion with other users as to whether or not those policies are being violated. No one can unilaterally delete this article - things like this end by wp:rough consensus of policy-compliant discussion points. Kevin (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Someone please assist. It took looking through numerous uncensored search engines but, I found a news article date 12:01AM GMT 11 Mar 2008, In the Telegraph which would somewhat validate he worked for the government. Can someone site this?> I have no idea how to. US envoy admits role in Aldo Moro killing Also Steve R.Pieczenik is a verifiable member of CFR citing the CFR membership roster list CFR member roster —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.217.251 (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC) — 71.232.217.251 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP: what are you so afraid of that this guy has to be deleted....perhaps thou doth protest too much, hmm? May 5 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.133.27.179 (talk) 02:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC) — 75.133.27.179 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP: I think we should use whatever reliable information we can find. I think it is important to make the page semi-protected. Is there any information about this guys connection to the conspiracy theorists? That might be an interesting portion to add. Jhunt47 (talk) 03:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP: This is absolutely ridiculous. I fear someone's narrow world view is being challenged and they want to shut out opposing information. Forget Alex Jones for a moment, Steve Pieczenik served as Deputy Secretary of State under Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance and James Baker. I haven't heard a single one of these hysterical, Wikipedia "vanguards" challenge this information. It's plainly obvious someone here is deathly concerned that having Dr. Pieczenik mentioned on Wikipedia allows his recent commentary on world events to become just a little "too accessible" to the mainstream. Honestly, stop the charade. Alex Jones also interviewed Hamid Gul, Noam Chomsky and Charlie Sheen; are we going to delete their articles too? What is this BS? Gamer112(Aus) (talk) 06:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you somehow not notice that only one person is actually supporting this deletion currently? And almost all Pieczenik's biographical information *was* initially being questioned, because multiple users could not find reliable sources to confirm any of it. There's no point in attacking people for discussing a deletion. Kevin (talk) 06:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only sources given for his having been "Deputy Assistant Secretary of State" are 1) his website and 2) an article that's clearly taking his word for it. Stronger independent sources needed to establish the claims made in the article, esp. given that the subject's truthfulness has been questioned. Vizjim (talk) 06:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are zero search-returns for "Pieczenik" in the National Archives or National Security Archives. I have increasing reason to disbelieve he was a "Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and/or Senior Policy Planner under Secretaries Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance, George Schultz and James Baker" over the course of three presidential administrations, and have added an ^{[non-primary source needed]} to the Wiki entry after that specific claim. Most 1st-page Google returns for the specific employment phraseology (""Deputy Assistant Secretary of State") are in fact Pieczenik references on conspiracy blogs which reference the Wikipedia article as proof of his bona-fides. (It'd be richly ironic if he met required notability by being exposed as a fraud.)--Mike18xx (talk) 08:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the 1985 NY Times reference not enough? What evidence do you have that they just took his word for it? You believe he lied to them as well and has been planning this "hoax" for 26 years? Admittedly I didn't find him on state.gov either, but it's not that high of a rank and they have many departments. Do they even list Deputy Assistants? Are any of you experts in Department of State affairs? KenricAshe (talk) 12:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC) — KenricAshe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

State Department credentials confirmed by Forbes.com "Pieczenik worked for the State Department under Henry Kissinger and is supposedly still a consultant for the State Department, though their PR department was of no use tracking him down. The Defense Department said the last he worked for them was under President Jimmy Carter." KenricAshe (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Credulous bio-page for Alex Jones conspiracy-theory guest"

The fact that someone was a guest in that show is irrelevant; your comment shows your bias.

"all listed references are to conspiracy websites"

Untrue, unless you call the websites of major newspapers and the CFR for example "conspiracy websites". Again, you show bias.

"all supporters on Talk page are new users who've joined for the sole purpose of defending the article."

Irrelevant ad-hominem attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.128.3.241 (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that Mike18xx and also Kevin ("conspiracy theory crud") have shown bias for what they believe are reputable news sources (ironic when all the major networks are controlled by corporations with a conflict of interest and profit-from-war incentives), it is also true that Wikipedia has guidelines for editors and Mike18xx was correct in his observance of the Single-purpose account rule which is designed among other things to prevent abuse by Special Interest Groups. Before anyone posts they should read the fine manual. KenricAshe (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

. The New York Times of January 28, 1981 indicates Pieczenik is a former State Department psychiatrist. This may indicate he has sources within government he wishes to conceal. A site search within Nytimes.com show numerous (perhaps 50) literary connections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesjohnsonphd (talk • contribs) 14:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mentioned sources sufficiently--Deineka (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pieczenik does have mainstream credentials, and also has made contact with the Alex Jones show. This itself in quite interesting. I think for the benefit of conspiricist and non-conspiracist alike, he should be kept track of with as much factual data as possible. Are there objections to factual data? raherbst —Preceding undated comment added 07:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC). — raherbst (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Pieczenik served with four secretaries of state, and he is the co-creator of Tom Clancy's Op-Center and Tom Clancy's Net Force paperback series. John Hyams (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help us find confirmation somewhere that he actually served with four secretaries of state? I think that would address some of the concerns Mike has. Kevin (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been confirmed by Forbes that Pieczenik at the very least "worked for the State Department under Henry Kissinger". Mike obviously has extreme bias here: "It'd be richly ironic if he met required notability by being exposed as a fraud." He's judging it before it's known one way or the other. Should someone with such an obvious conflict of interest be allowed to edit this Wikipedia page? KenricAshe (talk) 00:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it serves to get the SPAs to prove their case and rein in the spam-puffering (of which I observe that not one of you had any objection despite most of it being untrue; e.g., "author" and all that), then yes. Furthermore, him working under Kissinger does not automatically translate to him working under three other Secretaries of State as the article claims, either as a "Deputy Assistant Secretary" or in lesser capacity. -- Are you capable of verifying these claims, Kenric?--Mike18xx (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources that indicate he worked for the state department in some capacity, but there are not really any sources discussing in detail his specific positions or accomplishments there. Per WP:DIPLOMAT, for him to be notable in his capacity as a diplomat, those sources must exist. The mere fact that mike doesn't like Pieczenik doesn't mean he has a conflict of interest. If we didn't allow to edit articles that they had opinions about, barely anyone would be able to edit most articles - as an extreme example, think about how few people would be permitted to edit the bin Laden articles if we banned having an opinion. . Additionally, even editors that do have legitimate conflicts of interest are not typically prevented from editing articles, just discouraged from it and their edits are given greater scrutiny when they do make them. If you have problems with any of Mike's specific edits to the Pieczenik page, I would be happy to look them over again for you if you can provide diffs - or if you want a totally uninvolved editor, you can find someone willing to do so at one of the noticeboards I'm sure. Kevin (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proof that Mike18xx is not qualified to edit this page: I just checked out his user page. First I see that he appears to be interested in military and religion, and there is a strong implication that he is "critical of Islam" (his own words). And then I viewed the history of his page. See where Mrathel removed offensive material. He used the word "faggots" and most importantly relevant to this discussion he said: "ALL LIBERAL PINKOS MUST DIE". It's ironic that he rails against other users submitting AfD reqeusts with the intent to manipulate Wikipedia content when THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HE TRIED TO DO HERE. This hypocrite censor should have his editor privileges REVOKED! KenricAshe (talk) 01:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mrathel was removing vandalism on my page (see Kevin's commentary below). ...Kenric, you evaded my question to you, and instead attacked the messenger of what is, apparently, intolerable news regarding the presence or absence of this article. My opinion of Pieczenik is hardly hidden (and therefore BADFAITH) given that it's the lead comment in the Afd, whereas your interest in the matter is, shall we say, for the moment covert. Would it be unfair of me to surmise that you have a vested interest in promoting Pieczenik which is not dispassionately biographical? Might I suggest you put as much effort into verifying your man's bona fides as you do in perusing the back-pages of my user page?--Mike18xx (talk) 01:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the fact that he has opinions about things does not mean he cannot edit this afd discussion or the main article page. Additionally, he didn't use the word faggot, and he didn't say that all liberals must die. Look at the page history, those were added by people other than Mike to his userpage. He did let the post stay up longer than I would have, but that in no way demonstrates that he's incapable of editing this page well. If you have problems with his edits, provide the diffs of SPECIFIC edits related to this article that you have a problem with. And do so on either a relevant noticeboard or the talk page for the article - not on this deletion discussion page. BTW, requesting sanctions on a user should be done at WP:AN/I or another noticeboard, not here. Kevin (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification and further education on Wikipedia rules. I'll also say it's interesting that he wasn't the one who deleted the comments, even though he previously deleted other irrelevant comments. And I'm not the one who started the debates in this discussion page about Pieczenik's credentials. KenricAshe (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The entire point of an Afd is to prompt the promoters of an article to get their act together. Prior to the Afd, the article was a spam-wallow slathered in embellishments if not outright falsehoods.--Mike18xx (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did revise my request on the talk page and no one has responded to it yet. Is there anyone else besides Mike who objects? KenricAshe (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The premise of the question "Is there anyone else beside Mike who objects" is the contained-assertion "No one besides Mike objects" -- and that is false. There's at least one "DELETE" recommendation on this page, and it isn't even mine. Now to the point: Do you have anything to add to the article, or will your routine here consist entirely of attacking other editors?--Mike18xx (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Are you kidding me? Why the HELL would you want to delete this?Terrorist96 (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder, but AfD discussions are not votes. Just saying 'keep' without providing an explanation of why you think it should be kept or a response to the concerns that have been brought up on this page doesn't really do much good for anything. Kevin (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a so-called "Master Editor" and it is certainly my impression that a Keep here represents a vote.

But with only 55K edits, what the hell would I know, eh?

Varlaam (talk) 04:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. WP:NOTVOTE#Deletion.2C_moving_and_featuring. Indicating keep/delete/merge etc is a useful summary of how a person feels, but deletion discussions are not votes and posting keep/delete/merge is only useful or potentially influential if you include a reason for your opinion. Kevin (talk) 04:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thanks for your opinion. We welcome you.
For every WP policy, there is another which negates it.
There is no screaming necessity for me to justify my vote, but I will so so anyway.
He appears in this interesting article from Pakistan's The Nation (newspaper) – not the US magazine – about the theoretical death of Bin Laden: Bin Laden’s corpse has been on ice for nearly a decade.
Make of it what thou wilt. Varlaam (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there is, as you suggest, a policy (or evidence of community consensus somewhere) indicating that AfD discussions are votes or that there is a good reason to post !votes (which stands for "not a vote," btw) on AfD discussions without providing a rationale, please point me in its direction, I am genuinely curious to see it. You're right that there is no screaming necessity for you to justify your !vote, but AfD policy does explicitly state that !votes without a stated rationale will be given very little weight or outright ignored. Kevin (talk) 05:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP THIS ARTICLE - let those who are able add more to it. There is no reason for deleting it other than suppression of information which will obviously be 'inconvenient' to some. The facile and much over-used expression 'conspiracy theorist' is just a way of dismissing with contempt prior to investigation. — CarriKP (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 13:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC). — CarriKP (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

STRONG KEEP: He is clearly on the CFR roster, there are a load of books on sale on Amazon with his name on it, for those reasons alone he deserves to be considered a notable. He's at least as notable as Maeve Binchy:[61] and she has her own wikipedia article. And based on the number of books alone that he wrote, he's probably more notable than Nuala Ni Choncuir [62] who also has her own wikipedia article or Nuala Ní Dhomhnaill:[63] for that matter. Although I agree that any data that cannot be reliably verified should ofcourse be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmccone (talk • contribs) 17:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC) — Jmccone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep : Bio on businessweek.com. He's also appeared in a documentary wich was coproduced by and shown on a public french TV channel (2006). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lpmcdo (talk • contribs) 21:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC) — Lpmcdo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

In the current state, this article does not stand a WP:Snow chance of being deleted, can we just call it a game now?--Ducha mps_comb MFA 15:10, 11 May 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Network Instruction Set Processor

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

The article's topic is a neologism coined by Juniper Networks to promote its products. Google News, Books and Scholar returned no usage of the term in independent and/or reliable sources. Google Web returned a whopping 59 English results (86 results including all languages) for "Network Instruction Set Processor" -wiki -wikipedia -site:juniper.net, all of which are press releases, republished Wikipedia content, and unreliable sources. Rilak (talk) 08:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. A look in google scholar turns up nothing which would be surprising for any sort of notable processor type. -- Whpq (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 19:44, 7 May 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. joe decker ^{talk to me} 05:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of teams and cyclists in the 2010 Tour de Langkawi

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

I propose to remove all articles in the main category Category:Lists of teams and cyclists, this also includes

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate repository of facts. These lists of participants of cycling road races are not notable enough. At most the Tour de France, Giro d'Italia, Vuelta a España, UCI Road World Championships and Olympic games are notable enough for these kinds of lists.

I have started a discussion at the WikiProject Cycling, with everybody agreeing. I have notified the editors that created these articles, but none of them responded. EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 07:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that "with everybody agreeing" was actually two people. I think the Paris–Nice, Tour Down Under and Tour of Britain are notable events that should have lists of cyclists included (IE Keep those three). I don't know enough about the others. Lugnuts (talk) 13:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All are notable events, that's why they have their own article, but I don't think that notability is inhereted by the 'list of teams and cyclists' article. I forgot to mention: a better way to show who entered the race is by putting the list of participating teams in the parent article (2010 Tour de Langkawi etc.). And there were actually three people agreeing... The cycling project has a small active community... --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 14:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per comments above. All events are notable, but storing minutia such as team lists for each race in separate Wikipedia articles is neither practical nor justifiable. All such information can be stored in either the main articles regarding the races in question, or in any articles specifically dedicated to the involved teams. Ebikeguy (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Ebikeguy - frankieMR (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Ebikeguy --Falcadore (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ebikeguy. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 06:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notable events, but separate list articles are not needed. Any information can be put in the main event articles. Severo^TC 07:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Happy to agree here that these should be limited to Grand Tours, World Championships and Olympics. Pretty Green (talk) 09:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all forking lists; could be easily merged to their main articles, if they are notable and verifiable with reliable sources.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 10:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and do not merge any Meaningless trivia. If any rider had a notable participation in any of these events (stage win, podium finish, etc.) it's already going to be recorded in that rider's article or one of the team articles. There's just nothing significant about being a bottle-carrier in any of these events (I guess you could make the same argument about the Grand Tours, but I'd oppose that argument). Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 08:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: It looks like we have a very solid consensus here to delete the proposed pages. Do admins monitor these pages and close them after a certain time period, or do we need to request that the discussion be closed with a "Delete" verdict? Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 23:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No request necessary, usually most discussions are cleared between 7 and 8 days from start, I'll close this myself now. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 05:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert J. Schwalb

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

I don't see much of a claim to notability here. He's worked in the RPG industry, including working on some games that were given awards of dubious importance (ENnies do not appear to have received the coverage that would indicate importance) and that's about it. The awards listed appear to be awards for games that he worked on (along with lots of other people) and as far as I can tell, none of them are specifically for the bits that he worked on in those games. There does not appear to be any significant independent coverage of the subject on which to base an article. An IP half-proposed a merge to List of role-playing game designers, but there's no discussion of why such a merge would be appropriate after more than a month. Michig (talk) 05:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge at best if there's a sensible way to take a small amount of text. I can see nothing with any wider notability. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article probably needs some expansion, but the ENNies are a major industry award. Justin Bacon (talk) 02:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Justin Bacon. The ENNies started off small, but they are now the official awards of Gen Con, so that is no small honor. Some of those may have been co-wins, but some of them are for him alone. BOZ (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The lack of coverage of the Ennies suggests that they are not major awards, and I have yet to see any sources to confirm that the subject of this article has won any of them.--Michig (talk) 05:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the ENNies may not be broken out by individual contributors like Academy Awards are, I do not think it SYNTH to say "Person X worked on Game Y, Game Y won Award Z, therefore person X won award Z". Were either term ambiguous, I would not make that statement. Jclemens (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment I don't believe that the ENnies have any bearing on WP:ANYBIO #1. While the awards pass notability, I would question whether they are "well known", but the real issue is "significant". The problem is that very few of the award categories are of a standard to imply originality in the field (WP:CREATIVE). I think it definitely should only be the Gold awards that are considered for notability and I would doubt that any category other than best game should count for the notability of a person if not being named.

The Origins awards have categories that show how I think that co-creation may be insufficient. Robert has a nomination for 2011 as 1 of 7 co-designers of rules suppliment [64]. While I accept that RPG sometimes has new editions or suppliments that are really different games, it does make it questionable as to what aspect of the game is winning the award. I think that if there are more than 3 co-creators we should look for the most competitive of awards which would be the Hall of fame.

Having said all of the above I do think that the collective works means that to find the sources to meet WP:V could mean that schwalb is notable enough for an article.Tetron76 (talk) 11:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment I tend to agree that only Gold Ennies should matter -- those are the winners; coming in second place isn't necessarily significant. On significance of the awards: major publishers in the field submit their products for award consideration (e.g., Paizo, Wizards of the Coast, Fantasy Flight Games, Cubicle 7). I think that speaks to notability. Thanlis (talk) 12:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO. The ENnies are a significant award in the RPG industry, being the signature award of Gen Con, the largest RPG hobby convention. It is one of the two most important RPG industry award alongside the Origins awards. Publishers go so far as to note it on their covers and websites (reflexive notability, I suppose.) As for whether we should be concerned about whether or not Silver ENnies are relevant might be important to another discussion, but Robert has received multiple nominations, which also passes WP:ANYBIO. - Sangrolu (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment can anyone at all show me where this award is "well known" - i.e. known by anyone outside of the field? Seriously - I've played games for years and I'd never heard of them because, I imagine, I don't follow the gaming industry and it's press. I just don't see how this comes close to the GNG. Sure, it'll get in because people don't change their minds about stuff like this, but I do think there's a whole pile of notability issues associated with this that people are simply avoiding - if you accept this is a "well known" (from ANYBIO) award then where do we stop? Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I recall both OrgeCave.com and GamingReport.com carrying stories on it (alas, the latter seems to have disappeared after their parent magazine was bought out by some media group.) A quick search reaffirmed OgreCave covering the ENnies[1][2][3][4], and also reveals stories on it on GeekNative.com. I don't think I would accept just any award that some dude with a website has for the purposes of notability, but when it comes to RPGs, Origins and ENnies are it. And I know forums aren't typically considered for purposes of notability, but forums like RPGnet and Story-Games routinely discuss the awards when ENnie nominations and awards come up, so in some segments of the gaming community, it's not that obscure at all. - Sangrolu (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC) (Added links - Sangrolu (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC) )[reply]
Comment. I think there are several issues here which some people don't appear to be addressing. Firstly, in order to confer notability, the Ennies need to be considered major awards. Simply being one of the main awards within a narrow industry sector is not sufficient. If they are major awards, why do they get so little coverage? Secondly, it seems to be stretching things to say that a game winning an award means that anyone who worked on that game won the award. Some of the awards listed are for specific aspects, and anyone not directly involved in those aspects cannot be considered to have won the award. Thirdly, we need reliable sources to verify both that those games won those awards and that the subject of this article played a significant part in the work that was recognised by those awards. WP:V is a requirement for articles, and particularly for BLPs, and the reliable sources do not appear to exist to form the basis of an article here.--Michig (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You answered your own question, I think: They get so little coverage because they are for a small industry. But they still get mentions in third party news sites. This "major award in small industry is not good enough" seems to be your own criteria that I doesn't correlate with any WP guideline I am aware of. As for whether awarding a product constitutes awarding the individual: Schwalb is a lead writer on several of the nominated products, often with his name on the cover. I think it's a bit unsupportable to assert that the lead writer of an awarded work somehow did not receive said award unless it's specifically for something not related to writing (like artwork or layout). There have been game writers who have had their articles deleted that I could not credibly lend a "keep" vote to; Schwalb is not one of them. - Sangrolu (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They hardly get any mentions, which is part of the problem. I didn't say these are "major awards in a small industry" - they appear to be minor awards. We don't consider people notable because they got any award, and there seems little evidence that these are 'major awards' at all. --Michig (talk) 06:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- CommentDoes notability require recognition outside of the hobby/ industry/ medium/ area of interest? Obviously, an Oscar is notable; even people who don't care about movies know what an Oscar is. But, for example, the All Japan Koi Show and its winners are nowhere to be found in Wikipedia, despite being the Holy Grail for tens of thousands of koi enthusiasts around the globe, and its winning fish selling for six figures. In Japan it is covered in the news at least as strongly as the Westminster Kennel Club's dog show is in the USA. Given the extensive Wikipedia articles on specific video, computer and role playing games, it's obvious that we do in fact consider as "notable" many things that appeal only to a tiny slice of people (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_Warcraft:_Cataclysm , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Sun ) Not saying WoW isn't notable, but a full article on each expansion kind of puts to rest any notion of an impartial standard of "notability" requiring recognition from the non-gaming press. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.100.43 (talk) 03:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability requires significant coverage in reliable sources, which is still lacking here. Reliable sources specific to gaming would be fine, but where's the significant coverage in any source? I couldn't find any and nobody else has come up with any yet. --Michig (talk) 06:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I cited some third party sources who reported above; it wasn't that exhaustive a Google search to find them. I think they also showed up in Dungeon/Polyhedron magazine during its print run, but I would have to take time to look. - Sangrolu (talk) 11:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - With all due respect, I doubt that ogrecave.com (Allan Sugarbaker's website) and geeknative.com ("This is a personal blog, a hobby blog, run by Andrew Girdwood") would qualify as reliable sources.--Michig (talk) 05:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Point taken with respect to GeekNative.com. OgreCave, I am less sure about. Allan Sugarbaker is also part owner of RPGnet, as I recall, so I did see that but it was not a cause for me to dismiss it as non-reliable. I will try to find the print references in Dungeon/Polyhedron, time permitting. (Bad week for this... sigh) - Sangrolu (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Dug into my dungeon stacks and found:

Mona, Erik (September 2003). "Speaking of Awards... The ENnie Nominations are In!". Dungeon #102. XVII (6). Paizo Publishing LLC: Polyhedron 4.

Added to ENnies article. - Sangrolu (talk) 23:14, 10 May 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. As I discussed in a previous deletion debate, there are two types of debate on Wikipedia; those in areas with objective standards, where arguments are to be made with reference to those standards, and those in areas without such standards, where argument is emotive or subjective in tone. It is the latter area which causes the most trouble for administrators, the most debate, the most confusing-looking results, and the most appeals, counter-appeals and counter-counter-appeals to the eventual result. Despite how confusing this result may look given the arguments below, it is not a debate which fits into the latter category. The notability and coverage of articles is something that has objective standards, and the fact that those commentators arguing for "keep" chose to use subjective arguments with no proper reference to our policies does not mean that these standards are to be ignored.

User:Carrite and User:DGG make the argument that the movement as a whole has coverage - and that as such, every element of the area should be included in a dedicated article. Patently, this is not the case. WP:INHERITED is clear on the matter. User:Mia-etol makes a similar argument, ableit with implicit accusations of some sort of bias, and the idea that keeping this article would be necessary because the alternative is to demonstrate that Wikipedia is biased against marxism. This is not the case; our notability standards are objective in nature. Only if we were to adopt the subjective standards that people here seem to be arguing for would outright political bias really be possible. Our standards require academic or media coverage - any bias, therefore, reflects only the biases in mainstream thinking. The result of this all is that nobody has actually addressed the nominator's concern, as is their job as someone arguing contrarily. Asked to argue whether X=1 or X=2, they have instead tried to prove that mathematics doesn't apply. This is not a productive way to spend time, and it is not a productive attitude to take to discussions based on objectivity. Ironholds (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leninist–Trotskyist Tendency

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

No evidence of notability. No sources in the article, and a web search showed little that is usable or relevant. There is a brief, passing mention of this group in Robert Alexander's book on Trotskyism, but that's about it. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 04:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything referenceable and redirect to Fourth International (post-reunification) - this organisation contained some notable parties, and a Google Books search turns up several good references in English, and a few more in Spanish as the "Tendencia Leninista Trotskista", but it was a faction of the USFI group, so would be better covered there. Warofdreams talk 08:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I favor the lowest of all possible notability barriers for the inclusion of political parties or their youth sections on Wikipedia, without regard to ideology. Or size. If a political party exists, it should be included in the encyclopedia as notable per se, in my opinion. That Robert Alexander has included coverage of this group in his vast volume on the Trotskyist movement, as the nominator states, indicates that the group is the subject of scholarly interest. It may be esoteric, it may be a tiny splinter group, but it is something which is the object of serious scholarship. If it helps you to wrap your brain around the concept and you don't mind me paddling around in the deep water of OTHERSTUFF, think of tiny political parties as akin to obscure species of insects. Few people will ever give a crap about them, but they are rightfully considered worthy of encyclopedic coverage on a per se basis. Same deal here, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to failure to satisfy WP:ORG. Splinter parties must satisfy the applicable notability criterion. Liking articles about them, or observing that they exist (or once existed) is not an effective counterargument to lack of notability. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that ever existed. Edison (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's inclusion standards were not issued by god to Moses five thousand years ago, they've evolved over the last decade. I happen to feel that WP:ORG has it all wrong for political parties, that there should be a much lower standard for their inclusion, and am perfectly prepared to consistently stand where I do on this matter until such time that policy evolves further. It is PERFECTLY valid to make an IAR defense here, which I am effectively doing. The argument that my perspective relating to political parties implies that I somehow want Wikipedia to be "a directory of everything that ever existed" is specious. And no, I'm not a Trotskyist, I'd make the same argument if this were an article about a right wing fringe party. This group is the subject of independent scholarship and the article should be retained. Carrite (talk) 15:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen no indication at all that you want "everything which ever existed" to have an article,and did not mean to imply that, but haven't you stated you want articles for "every political party," including splinter parties? If three people break away from the "International Nonconformist Tendency" to form the "Provisional Nonconformist Splinter" and get a one line entry in the "Giant Encyclopedia of every political party that every existed," then should they get an encyclopedia article? Some splinter parties have no independent and reliable references (other than a directory listing somewhere, created perhaps by someone who noted they published a newsletter for some duration) to show that they had a significant number of members, ran candidates in elections, or did many other things generally done by political parties of note. A splinter political party is comparable to a splinter religion, a teen garage band, or a "micronation" in that all it has to do is assert it exists. You are very welcome to take your proposal to WP:ORG and try to build a consensus on the talk page thereof to lower the bar of notability to mere verifiability, as appears to exist for geographic features, species, chemical compounds, asteroids, hamlets, public high schools, and state legislators. Edison (talk) 18:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These articles are part of a series of articles about the various trends within Trotskyism - a political tradition of some relevance with significant presence in a large number of countries,e.g. 5 people with roots in various threads of the tradition (at least one of them fairly obscure) were recently elected to the Irish parliament (the Dáil) - blanket elimination of the more obscure smaller organisations (or sometimes only apparently obscure because they aren't represented in English-speaking countries) will seriously distort Wikipedia's coverage of this political tradition. We should be careful not to take decisions based on our political opinions or prejudices or to allow ourselves to be seen to be yoked into a political campaign (even if this may not be deliberate on the part of the proposer). While there may be a case for consolidation of some of the articles into longer more inclusive ones and some of the articles may require more referencing - if necessary in other languages - I think it would be a serious error to delete any of these articles. I'm adding this opinion to all the organizations proposed for deletion. Mia-etol (talk) 18:39, 1 April 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, Jujutacular ^talk 12:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the convincing arguments made by Carrite and Mia-etol. I too favor keeping articles about "obscure" political parties of the left, right and center. Understanding the full range of political thought is important and encyclopedic. Cullen328 (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is not actually an article about political thought. It is an argument about a specific political group - and there's little in the article to suggest they've contributed anything of special important to political thought as such. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 06:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep adequate source to establish existence. It's not a good idea to remove one of a series that is slightly less notable than the others, it greatly hampers the use of Wikipedia as an information resource. alexander including it is sufficient a reference. For political and religious groups, I think we need to work very carefully to avoid undercoverage of the minor ones, and I would essentially use the rule that if real existence is documented, we should include them. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no evidence of substantive coverage in reliable sources (and nary a reference in the article itself). Organisations of this type are continually schisming & reschisming (cue sketch from The Life of Brian). It is unreasonable to expect to have a separate article on each and every splinter group. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 20:07, 20 April 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no sources provided in the article and following an unsuccessful AfD five years ago, none have been provided. If someone wants to write a properly sourced article in the future then I would have no objection, but in the meantime we should not have unsourced articles. TFD (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep:~~ As I've argued above this is one of a series of articles connected with a particular political trend. While there may be arguments for merging theses articles, or at least some of them, the information should not be lost until this is done. Here I find myself in accord with Cullen328 above. Mia-etol (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Striking duplicate !vote. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Comment: WP:ITEXISTS is a poor argument for retaining an article (Carrite & DGG). If it is considered desirable to give comprehensive coverage of the political tradition, then splinter-parties too obscure to legitimately rate an article of their own can be covered via a list-article (oh look -- List of Trotskyist internationals already exists) or overview-article on the tradition as a whole, as is standard practice on Wikipedia (Mia-etol & DGG). Such special pleadings are a ruddy awful reason to WP:IAR. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a poorly resourced article. Search shows there are a quite a number of third party reliable sources, yet the article has not been improved in a long time. It should stay with its current tags; perhaps tagging it {{copy edit}} might get a result. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [65], [66], [67], [68] show the term is applied to a sepcific group in a number of published works. As a general organization it appears to fully meet normal notability criteria. I sugest that it is not a "political party" in the sense of standing candidates for office, but more of a organization dedicated to a political philosophy instead. Unless anyone can show me where they have fielded candidates for any office. Collect (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources listed do demonstrate that WP:ITEXISTS (but then nobody was claiming that it didn't), they do not however amount to "significant coverage" and thus notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the fact that we can verify existence does not verify notability. BelloWello (talk) 05:09, 6 May 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 only "keep" opinion does not provide reasons, leaving us with a delete consensus. Sandstein 07:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Rosenblatt

AfDs for this article:

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

a slightly sanitised vanity bio where most of the details are sourced only from WP:SPS. His one claim to fame seems to be having discovered and signed Madonna to Sire Records, but I'm not sure that alone would make him 'worthy' enough for a WP article. Most external sources make only trivial mention of him, yet the pre-sanitised version has him as "one of the music industry's most notable A&R executives"; most of the remainder of the bio remains lamentably inadequate per WP:RS since before the last AfD in October 2009. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I deprodded (esp as blpprod didn't apply) and sanitised it as well as doing as little sourcing. He was a senior VP A&R at MCA and there are more mentions of him in sources,[69] so please check before !voting. Also, I doubt this is a reliable source but this website has an interview with him:[70]. Fences&Windows 19:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 19:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 19:31, 20 April 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) 00:08, 27 April 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - small signs here and there that points to notaiblity.. even if a weak one.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

could you please explain what these "small signs" are? LibStar (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he has a lot of namesakes (it seems a medical doctor of the same name gets a lot more coverage) but you would think being a founder of a very famous label would get him indepth coverage but no. [news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Michael+Rosenblatt%22+source%3A%22-newswire%22+source%3A%22-wire%22+source%3A%22-presswire%22+source%3A%22-PR%22+source%3A%22-release%22+source%3A%22-wikipedia%22+geffen&btnG=Search+Archives&scoring=a]. Therefore fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unveiling Grace

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

Non-notable film lacking GHit and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb (talk) 05:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 27 April 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, Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All hits on GNEWS, GBOOKS, and GSCHOLAR are not capitalized, showing that they are not discussing the film. The film itself doesn't seem to be notable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Prado Jaramillo

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

Listed as a "semi professional basketball player" in England. Actually played for London South Bank University in 2008. Can't find any other information. Bgwhite (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy-Delete He does not play at the highest professional level, and no other indication as to why this person in notable. Only source in article is WP:ROUTINE coverage of the roster list of his team. Moreover, the name in the reference is "Diego Prado" and not "Diego Prado Jaramillo." All other biographical information is unsourced, and I cannot find any sources to meet WP:NSPORTS or WP:GNG. —Bagumba (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion requires that the article not even make a claim of importance. While semi professional may not pass the notability standard, it is enough to avoid speedy deletion. Monty ₈₄₅ 05:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 28 April 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, Baseball Watcher 03:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The information here is likely WP:COPYVIO as it appears in a number of other sources in search results. It is unclear which competition this University now competes in as the team has merged with Brixton Topcats. Does not satisfy WP:NSPORTS so delete is somewhat inevitable. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:20, 5 May 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Stitch Up

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

closest this band comes to notability is having a member from another notable band but that is not enough for wp:band. albums not on "important label". lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying WP:MUSIC. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:33, 20 April 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, Sumsum2010·T·C 03:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One of the two references simply link to the other one, which is an interview of "MU330 front man, and solo artist. The Stitch Up is mentioned by him as "kind of like my new solo thing". I cant find any source to support WP:BAND. Nimuaq (talk) 09:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 27 April 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, Baseball Watcher 03:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to MU330. There's not enough coverage around to merit a standalone article, but a band's lead singer's side project/new band is certainly worth a mention in that band's article, and there's some content here that can be usefully merged there.--Michig (talk) 20:24, 5 May 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) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cognac Gautier

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

I would have put a CSD notice in a second on this article, but anything that has to do with Louis XV might justify giving this article a fair discussion. Rainbow Dash 11:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The writing style of the article verges on the obscene but there seem to be some passable sources, eg [71] – ╟─Treasury Tag►You may go away now.─╢ 12:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep was going to claim it appears notable per independent coverage, but one of the links was a blacklisted site, and whether the other meets WP:RS is debatable. GBooks result given above is enough for a weak keep Jebus989^✰ 18:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 27 April 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, J04n(talk page) 14:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google books has several references, such as [72], [73], [74], [75]. [76] look WP:RS enough to me (it says it's got a medal in 1867). Regards, Comte0 (talk) 11:36, 30 April 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, Baseball Watcher 03:07, 5 May 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, move to Episcopal Day School (Augusta, Georgia), and convert this title to a disambiguation. Orlady's comment is particularly convincing. lifebaka++ 17:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Episcopal Day School

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

Private elementary/middle school appears to fail WP:ORG. Google search failed to provide any significant secondary source coverage other than this about the Headmaster's getting arrested/charged for DUI. Seeing as this is a private school, the usual outcome of merge/redirect isn't as clear cut here, in my opinion. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 18:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note per MelanieN's comment, I would be willing to go for delete and recreate as disambiguation page. Still, I think the page's present form should be deleted. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 14:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree there is a nearly total lack of secondary source coverage for this school. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Don't merge per usual practice for K-8 schools because the name is not unique; there must be dozens of schools called "Episcopal Day School." --MelanieN (talk) 01:53, 5 May 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, Baseball Watcher 02:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding Ks0stm's suggestion of a disambiguation page: I don't think this is necessary. Although there are dozens of schools in the United States named Episcopal Day School [77], they do not have (or should not have) Wikipedia articles, and thus no DAB is needed. The only such article aside from the subject under discussion is Episcopal Day School (Pensacola, Florida). It's a K-8 school with no references listed at all and no signficant sources found in a quick search, so it should probably be nominated for deletion as well. --MelanieN (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Either way works for me, just whichever consensus hammers out to in this situation. If consensus is to delete outright, that's fine by me, and if consensus is to make a disambig page, that's fine with me too so long as this incarnation is deleted. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unstrong Keep -- and rename. Although I have not been able to establish clear notability by the general notability guideline, I consider the school's claim of being the first integrated school in the Augusta area, in 1962, to be a powerful assertion of specific notability, and I have found a bit of independent news coverage. Desegregation of southern schools was slow in that era. Apparently Episcopal schools were leaders in desegregation, due largely to a push within the denomination, but this master's thesis and other sources lead me to think that 1962 was relatively early even for an Episcopal school. For example, that thesis and this timeline indicate that in 1962 or 1963, a son of Martin Luther King, Jr., was denied admission to an Episcopal day school in Atlanta (The Lovett School). Additionally, I have found plenty of news coverage of this Augusta Episcopal Day School (for example, a May 4, 2009 article in the Augusta Chronicle, "More students transfer to public schools from private" available from Google cache, plus several news stories about a drunk driving incident involving the headmaster), although I have yet to find any news stories to cite in the Wikipedia article, nor have I found third-party corroboration of desegregation in 1962. Meanwhile, dates and other details suggest that at least one (and possibly all) of the other Augusta private schools listed in Augusta, Georgia#Education was founded as a segregation academy (not something these schools typically highlight in their accounts of their histories). I find it distasteful that Wikipedia would keep articles about the former segregation academies (because they include high school grades) but not the one school that integrated -- and that now competes for students with the former segregation academies. All in all, I support retention of this article on the basis of modest third-party coverage and a strong assertion of notability -- one that I hope can be substantiated from third-party sources.
If kept, I think the article about this school should be renamed to Episcopal Day School (Augusta, Georgia), and the title converted to a disambiguation page. The name "Episcopal Day School" is not unique to this school, and this there is no indication that any school is the primary topic for the name. Furthermore, my Google search experience indicates that the generic term "Episcopal day school" is fairly widely used. In addition to this school, instances of the name "Episcopal Day School" include Episcopal Day School (Pensacola, Florida), Episcopal Day School in Brownsville, TX [78], Episcopal Day School in Southern Pines, North Carolina [79], one of the two schools that merged in 1987 to form University School of Jackson, Advent Episcopal Day School, All Saint's Episcopal Day School, Holy Trinity Episcopal Day School, St. Francis Episcopal Day School (Texas), St. Patrick's Episcopal Day School, St. Paul's Episcopal Day School, Trinity Episcopal Day School, Bishop Noland Episcopal Day School [80], St. Luke's Episcopal School [81], and many more like these. Most of these schools (including some with articles) probably aren't notable, but if individual schools called "Episcopal Day School" are covered (even briefly) in the articles about the churches that sponsor them or the cities where they are located, then there are valid destinations for disambiguation links (even though the schools may not have their own articles) and the existence of a disambiguation page may help discourage the creation of inappropriate articles. --Orlady (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You make an interesting point re: the possible need for a DAB page even if none of the individual schools are notable. I'll look forward to seeing any improvements you can make in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep; move, and dab. Orlady provides a convincing rationale. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:25, 11 May 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. procedurally keeping this per topic ban. but making an editorial decision to redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1999 (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Scott (model)

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not makes you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 01:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1999. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:27, 4 May 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, Baseball Watcher 01:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to List of Playboy Playmates of 1999. Although she does not pass WP:N on her own, she could still be a search term, and whatever information is available here could simply be merged into the main article. All due respect to Carrite, but the use of automated deletion nominating bots does not seem to fall under the purview of the AfD board; from my understanding, the AfD board is just to discuss the possible deletion of articles. If there is a decision from higher up saying that these articles have to be renominated manually or whatnot, that is fine. However, I feel that keeping them all on principle would be counterproductive. This argument will be copied and pasted, with slight modification, in the debate sections for all applicable AfDs of this ilk. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge per earlier precedents as noted above. Royal broil 03:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite. Its pretty telling that no admin wants to close these; what does that say about these afds? They don't accomplish anything useful. Its ok to say it, even if not kept.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 01:54, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [82]. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 07:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Free Grass Union

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

A few hits here suggest that the band plays bluegrass and that it exists, but that seems to be it. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page was created for informational purposes. Please do not delete the page, because it is helpful to those who are interested in the contributions this band has given to music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dslove27 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where did the Happy Cassie page go? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dslove27 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is Cassandra Spies. I gave permission to Danielle, user dslove27, to use the information about Free Grass Union and to create the band page as well as a page for me. These page are valuable to the fans of my band and I would appreciate it if they could remain intact. Many hours were put into the creation of these pages. Please reconsider the deletion decision. If you have any question about verification, please contact me at xxxxx@gmail.com. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cspies87 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines for inclusion (yes, there are guidelines here) are found generally in WP:N and specifically for bands in WP:BAND. Happy Cassie was an article without any kind of reliable source, and for a biography of a living person (see WP:BLP) that is unacceptable; the article is redirected to the band article. Myspace and Facebook are not reliable sources. There is no indication that this band is notable by our standards. If the band has made contributions to music, there is no doubt that reviews and newspaper articles can be found and added to the article--but see WP:RS for what sources are reliable. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the guideline and understand why the individual band members pages should not be included. As for the band's page, I have posted new information from reviews and they are from reliable resources. If more information is needed, I would be happy to post it. Thank you. User:Cspies87 —Preceding undated comment added 02:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of notability. Keb25 (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, just check out Free Grass Union on youtube ... I think you'll like what you hear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.51.16 (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sorry, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and things are included because they have achieved notability. The article creator said "This page was created for informational purposes" which is okay IF the topic is notable. The band will have to promote themselves elsewhere and after they become notable they will be eligible for a Wikipedia article. See also WP:PROMO and WP:NOTMYSPACE. Good luck. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:50, 11 May 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. Discarding all procedural opposes, there does not appear to be consensus that Sorenson meets the notability guideline for inclusion. While a close of 'no consensus' is also possible here, taking in to account that this is a BLP tips the scales in favor of deletion. A redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1981 would not be unwelcome. Prodego ^talk 03:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Sorenson

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 01:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, weakly. Appears to have enough film/TV work to indicate a nontrivial share of her notability isn't Playboy-related and therefore, barely, to justify an independent article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Her actress career spans from 1981 to 1995. She has been in 7 one-episode appearances of tv series, 2 minor appearances on tv movies and played 6 unnamed characters on movies (like Showgirl in For the Boys (1991) and Aiport Attendent in Fever Pitch (1985)). Just like we can't have an article for every playmate, we can't have an article for every such low profile actress. --Damiens.rf 20:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the other aspects or her career are also trivial. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per HW. Feels she satisfies PORNBIO (criteria 4) with her mainstream credits. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Her mainstream credits does not grant her notability. See above. --Damiens.rf 20:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable by virtue of being a Playmate or her film career; insufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify an article. Robofish (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to List of Playboy Playmates of 1981. Although she does not pass WP:N on her own, she could still be a search term, and whatever information is available here could simply be merged into the main article. All due respect to Carrite, but the use of automated deletion nominating bots does not seem to fall under the purview of the AfD board; from my understanding, the AfD board is just to discuss the possible deletion of articles. If there is a decision from higher up saying that these articles have to be renominated manually or whatnot, that is fine. However, I feel that keeping them all on principle would be counterproductive. This argument will be copied and pasted, with slight modification, in the debate sections for all applicable AfDs of this ilk. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HW. If he says keep, that is a good arbiter that consensus will more than be met, since he is strict on these.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [83]. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks the significant reliable coverage to meet notability standards. TerriersFan (talk) 01:00, 17 May 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Earl W. Smith

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

The subject is a Republican who is challenging Michael B. Coleman, the incumbent, in the 2011 Columbus, Ohio, mayoral election. Coverage of Smith's candidacy is relatively sparse at this point; more to the point, any coverage of Smith's candidacy is in local sources. Coverage of a candidacy for mayor in local sources is routine and does not, in my mind, establish notability. Columbus is a major city, so Smith will become notable under our guidelines if he wins the election; however, at the present time, he fails WP:POLITICIAN. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 01:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominated by the major opposition party to oppose the mayor of a major U.S. city, he has received significant coverage in major local media such as the Columbus Dispatch and clearly meets WP:POLITICIAN criteria #3. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there's coverage in major local media for every failed mayoral candidate in each major American city throughout history, if you're willing to go back far enough and look through some microfilm. But I would argue that such coverage is fundamentally routine. What we have here is essentially a political resume for a candidate who may or may not win. If he defeats Coleman, sure, then he meets WP:POLITICIAN, but I don't think what's been found so far is enough. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are certain things listed in the article that, if verified in a reliable source, would constitute passage of WP:N. However, I can't verify them - specifically, that he had an article in Columbus Monthly Magazine profiling him in 2000 (I found nothing at the Columbus Monthly site [84] to verify that claim), or that he was the Fraternal Order of Police's Police Officer of the Year in 2002. Frankly, I'm having trouble finding independent sources that verify anything but the bare facts of candidacy and that he was once a cop. If that continues up to the closing, then I don't see that we can do much besides delete the article. Ray^Talk 16:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 19:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Smith is and was the City of Columbus' highest profile police officer. He was the original spokesman and founder of the departments public face. He has been in multiple television interviews, and newspaper articles, becoming one of the most recognizable names and faces in Columbus, OH. Earl Smith also holds over 200 letters of recommendation from within and without the police department. Earl Smith is also a nationally recognized speaker and teacher on defensible space in U.S. cities and neighborhoods. He is an endorsed candidate of the Republican party in the 17th largest city in the United States going against the entrenched incumbent Mayor Michael B.Coleman. Overall, there is an exuberant amount of name recognition and notoriety with Earl W. Smith; which should entitle him to a Wikipedia page. I do not see how Wikipedia can deny a highly respected, recognized, and popular police officer, community member, citizen, and mayoral candidate for a major U.S. city a Wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.101.51.251 (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In a two party system, I am having trouble with the proposition that the challenger of the incumbent from the other major party is not inherently notable. While our notability rules don't require us to include candidates in small local elections or from fringe parties, the nominator here is arguing for the deletion of the biography of the Republican challenger in a significant American city. Also, the Columbus Dispatch is a well known newspaper so the attempt to dismiss it as non-notable "local" media is not well taken. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Wikipedia has traditionally afforded inherent notability to unelected candidates for office only in higher-level elections. Articles on unelected major party nominees for the U.S. Senate are kept; articles on unelected major party nominees for state senate are deleted. While these are not binding precedent, the following are common outcomes for these sorts of articles: "Unelected candidates for office below the national level are generally deleted unless previous notability can be demonstrated," and "unelected candidates for municipal election are not considered inherently notable just for their candidacy and are generally deleted unless previous notability can be demonstrated." So the idea that unelected major party nominees for mayor of large cities, like Smith, are inherently notable is not one traditionally held by the Wikipedia community, nor is it found in WP:POLITICIAN.
Also, I want to clarify that I am in no way dismissing the Dispatch as non-notable. What I said is that it is part of the local media – surely you'll agree with that – and of course it's going to cover the mayoral election. Every mayoral election in every major city in the U.S. receives this kind of coverage, which by your standards means that every major party nominee for mayor in a major city in the U.S. would meet our notability guidelines. If that's the way you feel, that's fine – we just have a fundamental disagreement on this subject. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I removed some items that I could not find sources for. I am still working on sources for some of the other items. But I did add an interview that mentions some of the awards. I've changed the article to clean up.

He is notable and will become more notable as the election draws closer. As mentioned before he has received an acceptable amount of media attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjustice13 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at this time. It would violate WP:CRYSTAL to speculate whether there will be sources covering Mr. Smith in detail as the election approaches. What is clear is that, despite lots of people burning lots of electrons, we can't find reliable, independent sources doing so now. Indeed, I basically put out a challenge well over a week ago to verify some basic biographical facts that I couldn't find any independent verification for, and we seem unable to do so. Thus, WP:BIO and WP:V both suggest deletion, without prejudice against re-creation if the new article actually has, you know, real sourcing meeting notability criteria. Ray^Talk 01:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, but candidates for office - even congressional office, much less state office, very much less city office - are not notable unless they have received the required press attention to pass WP:BIO. Mr. Smith has not. A search of Google News [85] finds a bunch of dead guys and one felon of the same name, but nothing at all about this Earl W. Smith. If he wins election he will be notable as the mayor of a major city, but as a candidate he is not. --MelanieN (talk) 04:31, 12 May 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.

Comment: After looking through the guidelines for politicians in WP:POLITICIAN I've decided to merge the info into a new page. "Relevant material from the biographical article can be merged into the election or political office page if appropriate." Also "Deleting a biography in these cases instead of merely redirecting it makes recovering useful information from the page history difficult, and should be done only when there are relevant reasons other than lack of notability for removing the article from the mainspace." Though I think it was unfair to delete the article given his significant coverage by the local media and his numerous notable awards a new page will be created called Columbus Mayoral Election, 2011. --Pjustice13 (talk) 23:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Vitale

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 01:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This one is a close case, but she seems to have picked up just enough coverage over the years to justify a separate article. If I remember right (and I can't track it down) she was also involved in a relatively important free speech case many years ago, where somebody used her image to rather mercilessly ridicule/satirize Playboy's self-promotion, and she unsuccessfully claimed to have been damaged/slandered/whatever. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have searched for reliable sources writing about her and failed. One (or possibly a few) very minor TV appearances, off camera job in a few other episodes, talk show on limited reach radio station for a short while; none of this leads me to believe that there will be significant coverage of her. All we have (except for the playboy links) is an obituary which is hardly sufficient - Peripitus (Talk) 00:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. HW has strict standards, and if he says a playmate is notable under his standards, he's never been wrong in any AfD that I've seen.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [86]. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks the significant reliable coverage to meet notability standards. TerriersFan (talk) 01:02, 17 May 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Marie Fuson

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 02:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1999. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Film/TV credits appear to be insignificant roles that aren't quite adequate to indicate independent notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Hullaballoo Hasteur (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Amount of coverage Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL from the Google News search convinces me she passes WP:BASIC. There is no playmatehood exception to GNG or WP:BASIC. Nominator is confusing trivia (the amount or depth of coverage) with the importance of the topic. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Morbidthoughts. Carrite also makes an excellent point, however, about this slew of noms.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to List of Playboy Playmates of 1999. Although she does not pass WP:N on her own, she could still be a search term, and whatever information is available here could simply be merged into the main article. All due respect to Carrite, but the use of automated deletion nominating bots does not seem to fall under the purview of the AfD board; from my understanding, the AfD board is just to discuss the possible deletion of articles. If there is a decision from higher up saying that these articles have to be renominated manually or whatnot, that is fine. However, I feel that keeping them all on principle would be counterproductive. This argument will be copied and pasted, with slight modification, in the debate sections for all applicable AfDs of this ilk. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [87]. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks the significant reliable coverage to meet notability standards. TerriersFan (talk) 01:03, 17 May 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) Baseball Watcher 20:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marianne Gravatte

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 02:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1982. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Playmate of the Year is a well known award satisfying criteria 1 of PORNBIO, strategic decision or not. No playmatehood exception in GNG or WP:BASIC on coverage revealed through Google News search. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to List of Playboy Playmates of 1982. Although she does not pass WP:N on her own, she could still be a search term, and whatever information is available here could simply be merged into the main article. All due respect to Carrite, but the use of automated deletion nominating bots does not seem to fall under the purview of the AfD board; from my understanding, the AfD board is just to discuss the possible deletion of articles. If there is a decision from higher up saying that these articles have to be renominated manually or whatnot, that is fine. However, I feel that keeping them all on principle would be counterproductive. This argument will be copied and pasted, with slight modification, in the debate sections for all applicable AfDs of this ilk. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Playmate of the Year, per Morbidthoughts. Recent AfDs on PMOYs have closed keep as well.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [88]. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 03:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Millicer

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

fails WP:BIO. no extensive coverage of him as a person, 1 gnews hit [89]. gbooks has a few hits but mostly confirming he has designed planes in 1 or 2 sentences. e.g. [90]. I don't see enough indepth coverage of his career, peer recognition, education etc. LibStar (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 07:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep, this book says that Millicer has "won awards in all spheres of aviation", and he was apparently a life member of the SAAA. As the nominator points out, the online sources are pretty feeble, but on the other hand Millicer's professional activity would have been in an era where internet coverage didn't exist. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although the article is poorly referenced, his war service and decorations, his work for four different aircraft manufacturers and as the winner of a worldwide aircraft design competition, qualify him IMO. YSSYguy (talk) 00:23, 6 May 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) Baseball Watcher 20:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Holliday

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 02:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1995. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes GNG and WP:BASIC with these articles about her. [91][92][93][94][95][96] She's a notable advocate against electroconvulsive therapy due to her status as a playmate. No playmatehood exception to the GNG. Nominator is confusing trivia as in depth of coverage for importance of the subject. Article just needs to be expanded with those sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to List of Playboy Playmates of 2004. Although she does not pass WP:N on her own, she could still be a search term, and whatever information is available here could simply be merged into the main article. All due respect to Carrite, but the use of automated deletion nominating bots does not seem to fall under the purview of the AfD board; from my understanding, the AfD board is just to discuss the possible deletion of articles. If there is a decision from higher up saying that these articles have to be renominated manually or whatnot, that is fine. However, I feel that keeping them all on principle would be counterproductive. This argument will be copied and pasted, with slight modification, in the debate sections for all applicable AfDs of this ilk. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivial coverage for activism causes, otherwise a PornBio and WP:NACTOR fail. Tarc (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Morbidthoughts.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [97]. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:05, 14 May 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlett Keegan

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 02:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reference 3 establishes notability. Having been a playmate is not an automatic disqualification for notability. Monty₈₄₅ 03:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- She, and two more playmates, were honored by Las Vegas mayor in an event promoting the city. I think it's trivial coverage of a non-award. --Damiens.rf 03:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The newspaper seemed to think it was enough of an event to deserve coverage. Monty₈₄₅ 04:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The local paper covered the local event. The girls was mentioned on passage. She is not the subject of the news-item. At least that's how I see it. --Damiens.rf 04:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [98], so it should also be a procedural keep. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2004. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. City ref refers to Playmate promotional activities and isn't sufficient to justify an independent article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to List of Playboy Playmates of 2004. Although she does not pass WP:N on her own, she could still be a search term, and whatever information is available here could simply be merged into the main article. All due respect to Carrite, but the use of automated deletion nominating bots does not seem to fall under the purview of the AfD board; from my understanding, the AfD board is just to discuss the possible deletion of articles. If there is a decision from higher up saying that these articles have to be renominated manually or whatnot, that is fine. However, I feel that keeping them all on principle would be counterproductive. This argument will be copied and pasted, with slight modification, in the debate sections for all applicable AfDs of this ilk. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simple notability failure; no WP:PORNBIO, no [{WP:GNG]]. A single mention in a local newspaper about a "Keys to the City" award...one of the lamest American culture clichés one can find...does not establish notability. Tarc (talk) 15:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keepper Monty, though its a close case.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but...what? Citation #1 is to wekinglypigs.com, which appears to be a personal website containing a searchable Playmate database, being used to source place of birth and measurements. Citation #2 is to "The Great 50th Anniversary Playmate Hunt", which unless I'm mistaken is a primary source. Citation #3 is to a UPI article that simply name-drops this woman; "The upcoming calendar features the gambling resort, using Las Vegas as a backdrop for all 12 months. Goodman posed with Jennifer Walcott, Scarlett Keegan and Destiny Davis, although the 65-year-old mayor wore a business suit instead of swim trunks, the Las Vegas Journal Review reports.". You cannot hang notability on a single, drive-by mention. Tarc (talk) 13:59, 13 May 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Kiger

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 02:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has enough nontrivial film credits to justify an independent article, even though, without her Playmate coverage, satisfying WP:ENT might be borderline. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep her HW's vote. HW's standards are not lax.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 02:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I look through the imdb entries and see a lof low 5th-10th-esque billing, and what she's at/near the top in is B-movie fluff. No WP:ENT passage here. Tarc (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - she went on to star in several films, including the sex comedy H.O.T.S. alongside fellow Playmate Pamela Bryant, and eventual Playboy model KC Winkler, and Angels Revenge. - basically says it all. made an impression in her business. Also this AFD was put on as part of some mass-AFD frenzy of Playmate articles.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:01, 7 May 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) Baseball Watcher 20:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer LeRoy

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 02:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Lots of results in google news, article already has a reference from 5 years after playmate appearance. I don't understand how this person fails notability. Article needs improvement with additional references, not deletion. Monty₈₄₅ 03:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of the gnews hist are about a tavern owner named Jennifer LeRoy. Is it the same person? --Damiens.rf 04:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, looks like she may not be, still though she appears to have gotten some press coverage, though not enough on its own to establish notability. Monty₈₄₅ 04:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [99]. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1993. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She has articles in the Denver and Colorado newspapers about her. No playmatehood exception for GNG or WP:BASIC. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to List of Playboy Playmates of 1993. Although she does not pass WP:N on her own, she could still be a search term, and whatever information is available here could simply be merged into the main article. All due respect to Carrite, but the use of automated deletion nominating bots does not seem to fall under the purview of the AfD board; from my understanding, the AfD board is just to discuss the possible deletion of articles. If there is a decision from higher up saying that these articles have to be renominated manually or whatnot, that is fine. However, I feel that keeping them all on principle would be counterproductive. This argument will be copied and pasted, with slight modification, in the debate sections for all applicable AfDs of this ilk. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Morbidthoughts.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 00:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Morbidthoughts' argument, simply put, is that oneshot hometown newspaper coverage is enough to satisfy the GNG. (Well, maybe a little too simply put.) We don't accept that for any other field; why should we accept it for Playmates? We'd end up with articles about every band that signed a record contract but never had an album released; for every writer who ever had a property optioned but never made into a film; for every amateur athlete who's had a really good game. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a slippery slope argument. A playmate is nothing like a great weekend golfer. Among actress/models, there's a lot of variation in how the "rules" should apply on a case by case basis.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:34, 13 May 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) Baseball Watcher 20:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Lohmann

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google news hits suggest this person is notable. Article needs improvement with additional references, not deletion. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [100], so also keep for that reason. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2001. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Monty. No playmatehood exception to GNG or WP:BASIC. Nominator is confusing trivial as in depth of coverage with importance of the topic. Just because the newspaper cover her because she's a playmate doesn't disqualify the coverage. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to List of Playboy Playmates of 2001. Although she does not pass WP:N on her own, she could still be a search term, and whatever information is available here could simply be merged into the main article. All due respect to Carrite, but the use of automated deletion nominating bots does not seem to fall under the purview of the AfD board; from my understanding, the AfD board is just to discuss the possible deletion of articles. If there is a decision from higher up saying that these articles have to be renominated manually or whatnot, that is fine. However, I feel that keeping them all on principle would be counterproductive. This argument will be copied and pasted, with slight modification, in the debate sections for all applicable AfDs of this ilk. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or close as no consensus. No real consensus to delete this one, its part of a mass nom, and this one hasn't gotten much attention. Sufficient arguments for notability have been made.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:41, 13 May 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) Baseball Watcher 20:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shallan Meiers

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2002. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Dekkappai (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Consistent coverage by Las Vegas Review-Journal adds up. No playmatehood exception in the GNG or WP:BASIC. Nominator is confusing trivia as the importance of the topic rather than the depth of coverage. See note 6 in WP:BASIC. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to List of Playboy Playmates of 2002. Although she does not pass WP:N on her own, she could still be a search term, and whatever information is available here could simply be merged into the main article. All due respect to Carrite, but the use of automated deletion nominating bots does not seem to fall under the purview of the AfD board; from my understanding, the AfD board is just to discuss the possible deletion of articles. If there is a decision from higher up saying that these articles have to be renominated manually or whatnot, that is fine. However, I feel that keeping them all on principle would be counterproductive. This argument will be copied and pasted, with slight modification, in the debate sections for all applicable AfDs of this ilk. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Morbidthoughts. Part of a mass nom, unfortunately apparently causing fatigue among AfD regulars, so no clear consensus to delete.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [101]. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:09, 14 May 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Miriam

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1997. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Dekkappai (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - The use of automated tools for mass deletions should not be allowed against large blocks of articles which have already been patrolled at New Pages. It is, simply put, a violation of WP:BEFORE — due diligence is not being done when these tools are being used in this way. "Shoot them all and let the saps at AfD sort them out," is apparently the line of thinking. While I am personally sympathetic to the idea of a very high bar for so-called "Porn Bios," this blasting of 100 articles at the rate of 1 per minute, judging from the time logs, is not conducive to the spirit or practice of AfD. It is putting WP:I DON'T LIKE IT ahead of the established article deletion process and is disrespectful both to the work of article creators and those of us who volunteer our time at AfD. We have seen similar automated mass annihilation efforts recently against modern Trotskyist political organizations and against fraternities and sororities. The net result of these efforts was a lot of lost time by article creators and AfD participants and a lot of lost information from those articles annihilated as part of these campaigns. Meanwhile, the backlog of crap at New Pages festers. Something needs to be done about this problem. Mine is not a unique view — see Wikipedia:ANI#Massive_number_of_Playboy-related_AFD_nominations_by_a_single_user at ANI. We need to keep them all as a matter of principle and ban the future use of automated tools in this way. This argument will be copied-and-pasted in the debate sections for all automated AfDs of this campaign. Carrite (talk) 13:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to List of Playboy Playmates of 1997. Although she does not pass WP:N on her own, she could still be a search term, and whatever information is available here could simply be merged into the main article. All due respect to Carrite, but the use of automated deletion nominating bots does not seem to fall under the purview of the AfD board; from my understanding, the AfD board is just to discuss the possible deletion of articles. If there is a decision from higher up saying that these articles have to be renominated manually or whatnot, that is fine. However, I feel that keeping them all on principle would be counterproductive. This argument will be copied and pasted, with slight modification, in the debate sections for all applicable AfDs of this ilk. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep Nomination was made in violation of a still active topic ban [102]. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:10, 14 May 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, Baseball Watcher 20:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The procedural keep no longer applies as the article has been twice re-listed. Consensus has determined that playmate status does not constitute notability.--Atlantictire (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks the significant reliable coverage to meet notability standards. TerriersFan (talk) 01:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or redirect if you must. Career achievements don't seem to justify retention under WP:PORNBIO or WP:ANYBIO. I tried several searches and couldn't find anything like the level of coverage required by WP:BASIC, so have to conclude that she isn't notable. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Vo(artist)

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

Self-promotion. Graduated High School two years ago, but claims an "honor diploma from Maryland Institute College of Art" when he was 11. All the online galleries given in the references are to where artists create their own page to sell or display their art. Claims to have written "many articles on marxism and prison life" with a reference given to a paper written in 1970 with a citation to a 1968 paper written by a person with the same name as his. Google scholar has other papers written by "Tyler Vo Jr." in the 1960s and 1970s. Has a website on how to draw cartoons at tvdrawing.com. Bgwhite (talk) 06:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 06:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 06:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is one source which is a news article that is reliable enough to prove that the individual is notable. -- ~~Whpq (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)~~I most assuredly did not add this comment -- Whpq (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.233.133.28 (talk) [reply]

Keep - We can't conclude that the individual is not notable. First of all, some of the galleries are reliable but not all of them. Secondly, there is a news article that is more than enough to support the reasoning that Tyler Vo is notable. Thirdly, he's listed in the Comic Book Database which isn't easy to get into. This supports the theory that he's a comic book artist and also supports the hypothesis that he is notable. Moreover, he owns a website that is quite well known. The website includes drawing lessons that literally state that the individual is an artist, "Artist - Tyler Vo". That is a definition. If the artist is an artist, is it not logical that he is not an artist? There's no way around that logic if he is defined that way! If the individual is an artist, we can indisputably say that the individual is notable. Am I not right? You can form the theory that the website is is not that well known and since the website is not well known that the definition is faulty, but how do you know? Unless you have conclusive evidence, you can't say that the website isn't well known. If you don't know how popular his website is, then you can only rely on your perception and not empiricism to prove that definition is correct. Given the fact that Youtube is a really popular website, if the owner of Youtube posted, "Tyler Vo is an artist" on the front page, would you conclude that Tyler Vo is an artist? Yes. If the owner of GJIWEGN.com posted, "Tyler Vo is an artist" on the front page, would you conclud ethat Tyler Vo is an artist? Wait a minute. How do you come up with a conclusion if you don't know how popular the website is? Unless you can measure the popularity, which isn't that easy. You don't know if the definition is right? Am I correct? All in all, because not all the galleries are unreliable, there is one good source, the artist is in a hard to get into database, and because it's impossible to get by the definition, "Tyler Vo - artist", we can't conclude that the individual is not notable. Geez, I'm sure more introspective today than ever. Not enough research to prove that the sources are not reliable. What makes you say that the sources are not reliable is your perception not logic. Logic involves mathematics. 1+1 is 2. You can't say source 1 is unreliable because of what you think. It has to be unreliable because it's unreliable! So yeah, I say keep. -- Shasojay (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've struck through a signature that implied a I added a keep comment. And yes, we can conclude somebody not notable. We do it all the time. Instead of a long statement which essentially says that he is notable because he is an artist and we know he is an artists because his web site says he is an artist, perhaps you can demonstrate notability with significant coverage in reliable sources such as magazines and newspapers. I looked and could find none. -- Whpq (talk) 20:37, 3 May 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) 00:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As mentioned by the nom, there are things here that just don't make sense and get my hoax senses tingling. I can understand vanity pages, but deliberately trying to fake something... The article has many issues, including a lack of notability, a lack of verifiability, and a lack of reliable sources. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and trout for the random academic claims. No news hits, search and references provide self-written biographical snippets at best, and books and scholar results are all about Frankenstein - frankieMR (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 03:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steampunk World's Fair

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Steampunk World's Fair

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

fails WP:GNG. nothing really notable about this event. gets 5 gnews hits and most of it merely confirms existence [103]. LibStar (talk) 08:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the number of attendees suggests this is not a trivial convention, and this appears to be the largest such convention. I personally think the Bergen newspaper article is just enough to meet WP:GNG. Kansan (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the number of attendees does not advance notability as per WP:BIG. LibStar (talk) 07:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not basing my stance off this number alone, but rather using it as evidence that this has strong importance in what appears to be a fast growing cultural movement based on Steampunk#Culture, in addition to the sources already provided. While I won't lose any sleep should this be deleted, I did want to clarify my rationale. Kansan (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Striking per WP:FINE. Kansan (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that this convention fails the general notability guideline. Perhaps it is the largest convention of its kind, but I don't think that means too much, given the relatively small number of steampunk enthusiasts. The Record is certainly a reliable newspaper, but, like The Star-Ledger and others, they do tend to run a decent number of human-interest pieces each week. Being the subject of one of those articles is definitely not enough by itself to confer notability. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. —A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are two very brief mentions: Brooklyn Vegan and the Wall Street Journal, local coverage and most importantly this major coverage added to the existing Bergen record reference passes our guidelines, albiet barely so. As the date approaches I guess that there may be more coverage to solidify this article, but regardless, good to keep for now. - Theornamentalist (talk) 04:32, 30 April 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) 00:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep coverage looks ok to me once the new sources are added.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Brown Ransley

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

Non-notable artist. A local portaitist who, although prolific, never made a significant impact on the art world. Only exhibition appears to have been at a local portrait gallery. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 29 April 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) 00:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doggone it, because I would love to have an article about her (yes, her); she sounds like a fascinating woman. But I could find nothing at Google Books or Google Scholar. She got a few passing mentions in the Chicago Tribune during the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s [104]; not enough. Pity. --MelanieN (talk) 04:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gotti: Three Generations

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

WP:NFF violation. Principal filming has not begun, article is basically an exercise in crystalline prose. —Kww(talk) 15:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge what sorced information is suitable to the John Gotti article. Topic does not currently merit a seperate article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article will soon be noteworthy, so why delete it have to write a do-over? And yes, this does slightly "Bend' the standard. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 03:12, 3 May 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) 00:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What is here seems to be a copyright violation, perhaps from the original press release. Some films never materialise, even after being shot, so this may not have to be remade... but if it does, so be it. When it is release it will be much easier to prove notability with verifiable information. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Movie is in Pre Production. WP:NFF applies. --Whiteguru (talk) 13:26, 5 May 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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saint David's School (New York City)

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

Elementary schools are not ordinarily notable individually--if not, the default is usually to merge them into the school district/diocese/community. This might be an exception, as there are some clearly notable former pupils (including John F. Kennedy, Jr., though he didn't graduate), and an exceptionally good job of referencing for an article of this sort, and I am sending it here for discussion. I am unsure, personally. DGG ( talk ) 20:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If I had seen the CSD I would have declined it too as the article certainly makes claims to notability. It has come a very long way since it was created as a tiny stub in 2009 and many editors have contributed to making it a clean school page. The school appears to be far more worthy of mention than a great many primary school articles (although of course, a converse WP:OTHERSTUFF rationale is inadmissible). Most of the referenced sources however, appear to be mainly concerned with alumni and do not support notability for the school as their personal notability cannot be inherited. One of the reliable sources that may have more in depth coverage is behind a pay-wall, while the other NYT article lends more weight to arguments for notability. My only serious reserve is that it reads a tad promotional, but this can be rectified - I might even have a go at it myself if it is kept. So my overall opinion is 'keep'. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add that online I've only found one further reference: Apparently the school is mentioned in Overview-Middle Schools in New York City (2010) General Books LLC ISBN-13: 9781157038597, ISBN: 115703859X, b ut I'don't have access to it. There may also be other print media in libraries that mention the school. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I state below, this page is far from clean; the vast majority of the page is copyvio or unreliably sourced. I beg to differ on the notable alumni, though. The 'notability is not inherited' guideline was intended for the kids of celebs and the like. Secondary schools have a significant influence on the future lives and careers of their students so their alumni should be taken into account when assessing notability. TerriersFan (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I started editing this page then I realised that most of it is copyvio; the lead, and the History, Curriculum, The Arts and Athletics sections are pretty much straight lifts from the school's website. The 'Controversy' section is sourced by what is certainly not a reliable source and should be better sourced or excised. If this school is kept and, with several notable alumni it possibly should be, then it needs stubbing back to the bare bones. TerriersFan (talk) 00:33, 5 May 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) 00:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are some elements of WP:COPYVIO insofar as the school ethos and numbers are given. Perhaps some better research from records in the school district might improve the article. Notability is apparent in the list of alumni and reference given above. --Whiteguru (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment some elements of Copyvio? Apart from some inconsequential rewording:
- The lead is lifted from http://www.saintdavids.org/about/
- History from http://www.saintdavids.org/about/school_history.html
- Curriculum from http://www.saintdavids.org/school_program/
- The Arts from http://www.saintdavids.org/the_arts/
- Athletics from http://www.saintdavids.org/athletics/

I have removed all this and rewritten the lead. TerriersFan (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - assuming it can be sourced, per TerriersFan. Bearian (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, not notable. The school is not historic or a landmark, and does not appear to be notable. Google News finds lots of hits but they are trivial: numerous items mentioning that JFK Jr. was going there, but not otherwise saying anything about the school; mentions in connection with a flu epidemic; bridal notices; a sentence about the appointment of a headmaster. The only coverage that went beyond a passing mention was this in the NYT about a class project. Not enough. --MelanieN (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Could be Merged instead of deleted if we can figure out the appropriate target. The article and the school's web page don't say what educational structure it reports to - presumably a diocese or an archdiocese? --MelanieN (talk) 04:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Why not put up the copyvio? I mean...the controversy is at least interesting and notable because said protestor is the son of the previous principal, which is cited. I think readers wouldn't care whether the content was copied or not as long as it is informational. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.160.6 (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, due mostly to the fact that several rich and famous people have sent their kids there. Yes, notability is not inherited, but those associations with the rich and famous have resulted in coverage that is not always trivial in nature. This article about "preppie killer" Robert Chambers, a St. David's alumnus, includes a fairly long discussion of his childhood, including his time at St. David's. There's also a 1996 New York magazine article that's quite critical of the school; I haven't used it in the article yet, but it could be used. I've added a few other sources to the article. --Orlady (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Lee (pornographic actor)

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

Porn performer who does not appear to meet WP:PORNBIO or WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:PORNBIO not satisfied. CycloneGU (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GNG He's the subject of a chapter in a scholarly work, covering his place in gay porn history.
A San Francisco food periodical, GrubStreet reports that he's known as "...the first famous Asian top..." in an article about his unusual, and notable, dual career.
Another San Fransisco periodical, SF weekly, in a WP:NEWSBLOG story about his dual career reports:
If you're into gay porn, you may know Lee as the scrappy, inked-up Filipino American who banged through stereotypes to be the first famous Asian top. You may not know that after breaking up with his real-life partner, Lee moved to San Francisco from L.A. in July for a fresh start. As a chef.
I'll add that to the wikipedia article. David in DC (talk) 10:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be noted that the short Grubstreet piece is about the article in the SF Weekly and the "first famous..." quote is a quotation from that article. While the scholarly work goes some way to establishing notability, would Lee's career as a chef have been reported on if he were not a porn performer? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I'm on the fence but it seems like he might be notable to some. --Kumioko (talk) 11:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 29 April 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) 00:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: - Does not meet standard of notability for porno actors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burkina Faso (talk • contribs) 07:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to meet WP:PORNBIO --Whiteguru (talk) 13:09, 5 May 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.