Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 September 5

< 4 September	6 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amba Tremain

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

This article is written like an advertisement and it can be clarified well. I suggested to delete the article or merge to an article. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability of WP:BIO. -Porch corpter (contribs) 00:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. There is some evidence of notability here (this is a forum thread but the Mirror article it claims to have copypasted from looks genuine) but given the lack of sources out there there's too many question marks over verifiability. (Should someone find sources for this, of course, I'll think again.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 06:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find a reliable source to confirm that she appeared on the television show or to confirm the claim that she was cheated by a crooked manager. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, Boleyn (talk) 08:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not met the WP:GNG. Needs more sources.--Ryan.germany (talk) 10:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reluctant delete, because I would expect this individual to be considered notable as the winner of a TV talent show (Don't ask me to explain how that is encyclopedic, but this does seem to meet our current bar for notability). However this article doesn't have one independent WP:RS on it, so it has to go (unless fixed, sharpish). Andy Dingley (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable - no sources provided and I can find myself. Also written like an advert. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seto Kaiba (band)

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

Non-notable band on a non-notable label. The chart positions seem to be fake. There is no entry for this band at US Billboard nor does a book search come up with anything in British Hit Singles & Albums [1]. De728631 (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The band members appear to have the same names as anime characters, and the band's discography section contains a mixture of many of the same song titles found in the Nickelback and Shinedown discographies, so I suspect a hoax. Even if not, I am unable to locate any coverage for this band anyway. Gongshow ^Talk 04:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete doesn't even come close to meeting the WP:GNG--Ryan.germany (talk) 10:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Possibly a hoax; definitely not notable. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete - WP:Hoax subject written in an invented language. Plutonium27 (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Naruto Deaths

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

Not an appropriate topic for a list. All this list is about is which fictional characters killed which other fictional characters and is nothing more than trivia. This also fails WP:NOT per WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:IINFO. You can call it fancruft if you like as I believe this is a text book example content that is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans. And I doubt that even the enthusiastic fans will find this list all that interesting. —Farix (t | c) 22:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kill with fire please. The nominators argument is spot on and I can only second it. Screw Capricorne 90MF is even worse. Yoenit (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this lot of unneeded information (WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:FANCRUFT). Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that even most (if not all) fans would think that is list unneeded.--70.24.215.48 (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The deaths can just as easily be talked about in the plot if they are notable, delete also per nom. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mostly fancruft; not notable enough for a list. Anything which is notable to the article on Naruto should be incorporated into that article (but even that article does not need a long list of deaths - just the important ones, woven into the prose). ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mines are mine

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

Non-notable, unknown subject (as only search result seems to be a couple of one minute YouTube clips), OR, essay.

I think that about covers the main points, it seems to be an essay with some strange links and full of OR without recourse to a particular subject apart from anger at mines and their ecological consequences. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article's infobox suggests that it is about a film, but the main text doesn't specifically state that. Furthermore, the film is not listed in the Internet Movie Database, which calls its notability into question. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, a poorly writen article whose text recounts the events leading to why the film ws made. The expose' film Mines are Mine,[2] dealing with mining practices in Goa, screened at the 6th annual Vibgyor Filme Festival in Kerala last January: #70 on this screening list. However, it did not win awards, nor get critical commentary and review. Fails WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:42, 6 September 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. Aside from some reservations and a merge suggestion by Hrafn, nobody but the nominator is arguing for deletion. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic aliens

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

Reads more like "List of aliens claimed by people to have pale skin, blonde hair or other subjectively-interpreted Scandanavian features." Article looks to be a holdover from the bad old days of Wikipedia when well-intentioned UFO buffs were keen on building a number of niche articles based only on iffy UFOlogy sources and original research. The sources now cited are reliable, but the phrase "nordic types" or the word "nordic" is merely included among a laundry list of descriptions of aliens people claim to have seen. Other sources just mention aliens with long blonde hair. Or pale skin. There is no significant coverage of the concept found in reliable sources. Passing or trivial mentions of something do not justify a stand-alone article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Ugh. I don't want to get involved with this article, because I know it will lead to lots of extra stress. But I'm also one of the few regular editors who will be willing to defend it. Anyway, there are other reliable sources that discuss the Nordic alien concept. This book was published by Duke University Press, and contains a bit of history on the concept (eg, George Adamski.) This one provides a bit of sociological analysis that can be included in the article. This book might be useful too, from what I've seen browsing through it at the library in the past. We also have books like this, which probably wouldn't be considered reliable for most purposes, but at least provide evidence that "Nordic aliens" is a widely understood concept in UFOlogy circles. Zagalejo^^^ 01:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't like them, any more than I like Nordic Death Metal music, but sources are provided with discuss them. BigJim707 (talk) 05:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - May be less common than the Little green men, Grey alien or Reptilians descriptions, but each commonly described type are notable enough for their own Article. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 06:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the sources already in the article fail to offer significant coverage, and the ones suggested here on the AfD to date appear to be mostly problematical. Battaglia gives a definition of Nordic ("a mixture of Nordic and 'Oriental'") that appears to contradict other, purely-Nordic, definitions, many of them are unclear as to how much coverage they offer, and the title The Big Book of UFOs gives me doubts as to how scholarly it is. Erich Goode's book appears to be the only unambiguously unproblematical source to date, and I don't know if that's enough on its own. I would suggest that some sort of showing as to depth of coverage, by working some of these sources into the article, may be needed. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do any sources explicitly describe them as "purely" Nordic? In any case, I'm pretty sure there is more information out there; I'll have to go to a library within the next few days. I know from past experience that Google Books gives an erratic picture of what is available when it comes to UFO/paranormal stuff. I did find another potentially usable source on Amazon: The Chambers Dictionary of the Unexplained, which has an entry on Nordics from pages 489-490. (If you have an Amazon account, you can preview it.) Zagalejo^^^ 21:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They don't say "purely Nordic", but frequently describe purely Nordic features: e.g. pale skin, blonde hair, blue eyes, that contains no admixture of Oriental features. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Adamski claimed to meet Nordic Aliens...later "contactees" say they did too...and sociologists say they are probably idealizations of humans. Using all the RS we have gathered to date, the subject still can only generate about a paragraph and a half of material. My opinion is that this material would be better situated at Abduction phenomenon entities. Note that it's not the end of the world if aliens with insufficient notability are Redirects, e.g. how some entries at List of alleged extraterrestrial beings are treated. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, to Abduction phenomenon entities (unless some better target is found). Material to date appears to amount mainly to a vague description and anecdotal reports of encounters, of questionable noteworthiness. Little in the way of substantive secondary analysis, and not enough to warrant an independent article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not crazy about that as a merge target, because Nordics are often associated with the contactee tradition, which generally doesn't have much to do with probes and implants and such. List of alleged extraterrestrial beings could be a better target, although that page needs to be retooled to get rid of the silly table and use more prose descriptions. But before we start talking about merges, give me a little time to get to the library so I can see what else I can find about Nordic aliens. I'm hoping to track down a couple of books within the next couple days. Zagalejo^^^ 18:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a little bit more, but I still don't think I've exhausted the material that is out there. And as I said on the article talk page, Jerome Clark should count as a reliable source, since the American National Biography uses him as a source in at least one of their articles (on George Adamski). Zagalejo^^^ 03:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although it is fairly hard to find reliable sources about it, it is definitely a notable subject within the field of ufology, and it has citations. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:FRINGE, and fits in well with WP:ODD. I can't see where to merge it into. Bearian (talk) 21:46, 12 September 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 (non-admin closure). Jenks24 (talk) 12:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Friends meeting house, Adelaide

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

No notability that I can see, and only passing mentions in the references. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Historic Adelaide church dating back to the 1840s. Despite what the nom says, the second reference goes into explicit detail of the property and the first one is easily beyond the scope of a "passing mention." The South Australia government also has a brief (still more than "passing mention") profile. [3] --Oakshade (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. One sentence in the first reference doesn't count as a passing mention? I didn't read far enough in the second; it does describe the property, though I'm not sure that that's sufficient by itself. The government profile does, however, make me reconsider. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - For that first reference, it's actually a very long sentence, almost a paragraph. I just don't consider that a "passing mention."--Oakshade (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Very significant due to early date (1840, just four years after European settlement); context (unique nature of free settlement of the colony of South Australia as a "paradise of dissent", rather than as a penal colony); and central location within the City of Adelaide. Bahudhara (talk) 02:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Listed as a State Heritage Place by the South Australian Government.[4] Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. Government references do the trick. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jab se you have loved me...the story of an Airhostess & an IITian

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

Non notable book Chaosdruid (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I've already tagged it up for speedy under G12. But if at all the article survives that here is my vote. Absolute no reference in Indian media. Not a major publishing company or author. Borderlines on speedy G11. — Fιnεmαnn ^(talk) 22:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
JUST DELETE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animeshkulkarni (talk • contribs) 13:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reference in any reliable source, fails WP:GNG. Bacon and the Sandwich (talk) 13:01, 12 September 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. v/r - T P 00:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Hungary

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

Reasons for a deltion are next. I have found a 2 serious books about Hungarian history which says nothing about principality. 1. (http://books.google.com/books?id=y0g4YEp7ZrsC&lpg=PP1&dq=hungary%20history&hl=sk&pg=PA18#v=onepage&q&f=false) In the article, you can read, its written that the founder of state is Istvan, before that the Hungarians were not united (he was elected as a king in 25 Dec. 1000/ 1 Jan. 1001) 2. (http://books.google.com/books?id=SKwmGQCT0MAC&lpg=PP1&dq=hungary%20history&hl=sk&pg=PA12#v=onepage&q&f=false) again nothing about Hungarian principality in 9th century, its wirtten that in the 896 when the Hungarian, Kabar and Turkic semi-nomadic people came to the Carpathian basin: "it was a no reason to believe that Hungarians considered a Carpahian basin as a their new home" Authors are Hungarian historians and sources are reliable. There is a nothing about "Principality of Hungary" But its next books, I can a find later, whose says nothing about Hungarian principality. It exist only one book which used this therm for this early period (http://books.google.com/books?id=Bz7aKaJNfokC&lpg=PA19&dq=%22Principality%20of%20Hungary%22&hl=sk&pg=PA19#v=onepage&q=%22Principality%20of%20Hungary%22&f=false). This historian has a specialization about modern history espetialy about Stalinism. Information in the book is: "Magyar clans from Asia came in the late 9th century and established a principality of Hungary." This therm was for a first time used in the 1993. There are no concrete years and nothing more about this "principality". On the other hand the seriouse books says nothing about existention of Principality of Hungary. They says that Hungarian, Kabar and Turkic tribes were a semi-nomadic and its no reason to believe that Hungarians considered a carpathian basin as their final home. This user makes a lot of such edits without consensus, for exmaple in Royal Hungary (http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Royal_Hungary&action=history) deleted and redirected article without discussion at talk page. Royal Hungary ([5]) was a province of Habsburg Empire and this user tries to make a Separe Article about continuity of Hungarian Kingdom, which was divided in 16th century between Ottoman empire, Habsburg empire and Transylvania. He made a article Hungarian invasions of Europe (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Royal+Hungary%22&btnG=Vyh%C4%BEad%C3%A1vanie+kn%C3%ADh&tbm=bks&tbo=1&hl=sk#sclient=psy&hl=sk&tbo=1&tbm=bks&source=hp&q=%22Hungarian+invasions+of+Europe%22&pbx=1&oq=%22Hungarian+invasions+of+Europe%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=161150l166399l0l166520l29l23l0l0l0l6l209l3040l7.13.2l22l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=144a467f858ec791&biw=1246&bih=645) and this therm does not exist. It were a raids, as it is a written in the next 2 books above (usualy the moss-trooping raids). User is not open for discussion and he is a problematic and calls other users nationalists who hates Hungarians ([6]). Samofi (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Samofi, Could you please stop your personal attack against me?

About the page. There are reliable sources about the theme. There is no valid reason to cease that article.Fakirbakir (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources says nothing about "Principality of Hungary". Just the term is mentioned in the book from Hodos without explanation and more proper informations. Other sources says nothing about the existention of this "principality". --Samofi (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, check the sources again. For instance, Cited: '10th-century Hungarian principality' Bartha, p. 84 Fakirbakir (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. The English sources do mention the term principality: Hodos, p. 19: "Magyar clans... established the principality of Hungary", Bartha p. 84: "the 10th century Hungarian Principality", Steinhübel in Europe's centre around AD 1000 p. 327: "This caused the area of the Arpad settlement to shift to the western regions of the principality of Hungary. And the Hungarian term nagyfejedelemség apparently translates to both "Grand Duchy" and "Grand Principality". But the English terminology is clearly attested. De728631 (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The term 'principality of Hungary' is used in several sources. Everyone doesn't write identically. Northamerica1000 (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The existence of the Hungarian realm before the "Kingdom of Hungary" was founded is a historical fact. It can be discussed what would be the best name for the article, but the article should exist. Here is a quote from the journal "Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae" (published by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Volume 36, 1982: "Prior to the foundation of the Hungarian Kingdom, in the age of principality, ie between 896 and 1000 AD, the princes of the Arpad dynasty, like the majority of the land-conquering tribes, bore Turkic names". Other English examples that talk about "principality": [7] [8]. Also see my comment about this on the Talk page of the History of Hungary article. Koertefa (talk) 04:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note Hodos does not say that principality was created in the end of 9th century. He told that Hungarians came in the end of 9th century and later was a principality created. We have used only sources from the Hungarian authors, is it neutral? And we will ignore a lot of scholar publications whose says that hungarians started to create the state after 955? "Cited: '10th-century Hungarian principality' Bartha, p. 84" 10th century is from 900 to 999, not 895. But the real principality or grand principality was created at the end of 10th century. Article was nominated for deletion because here were propagandistic statements like: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Principality_of_Hungary&diff=447848521&oldid=99249097 : "Hungarian is one of the oldest countries in Europe, established in 895, some 60 years after the division of France and Germany at the Treaty of Verdun in 843, before the unification of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms." So again, do we ignore a majority of scholar publications whose says nothing about Principality of Hungary before 955? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samofi (talk • contribs) 06:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but cleanup the silly WP:Bombardment and integrate better with the existing articles on the topic. Submitter has valid concerns about article quality, and indeed our Hungarian history articles are infested with nationalism, but AfD isn't the place to resolve this. If the article is crap, it needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. --dab (𒁳) 10:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- essentially, this is our "10th century in Hungary" / Christianization of Hungary article. It has no other content than Christianization of Hungary if we disregard the duplication of Magyar invasion of Pannonia. Thus, the article is valid, but the title as it stands isn't very descriptive, and "Christianization of Hungary" may be preferable. But this is not a severe problem, let alone one for AfD. --dab (𒁳) 13:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Something (Principality) did exist before the Kingdom of Hungary. But we are probably talking about the Principality from 970s to 1000, not from 895? Before 970 we are talking about Principality of Lower Pannonia. Yes/No??--Kebeta (talk) 14:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Principality of Lower Pannonia existed before the Hungarians conquered the Carpathian Basin, but it perished after the arrival of the Hungarian tribes. Many sources claim that this was around the end of the 9th or the beginning of the 10th century. It surely did not last until 970. But we should discuss these questions on the Talk page of the article itself. Koertefa (talk) 08:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Maybe I reacted too fast with the deletion but the article in that time looked differently than now. Before 972 we can hardly to talk about Principality, its just a few sources which mentioned that. But we can talk about Hungarian tribal union: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22hungarian+tribal+union%22&btnG=Vyh%C4%BEad%C3%A1vanie+kn%C3%ADh&tbm=bks&tbo=1&hl=sk The first Grand prince who connected a majority of the Hungarian tribes to the one supra-tribal union (principality) was a Geza and shortly after that Hungarians founded a Christian kingdom. --Samofi (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Wikipedia articles often need to be allowed time for expansion. Northamerica1000 (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment2Okay, but why it was created with so many uncited sources and fakes? Its reason to delete it and make a new article. Article about Slovaks in Hungary was deleted and Slovaks are after Roma people and Germans the largest minority in Hungary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Slovaks_in_Hungary). I agree, there was a lot of unsourced matherial in the article, but the term exist, 1 860 hits in google books (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Slovaks+in+Hungary%22&btnG=Vyh%C4%BEad%C3%A1vanie+kn%C3%ADh&tbm=bks&tbo=1&hl=sk). This article was deleted very easy in the few days. So how is it going with the deletion? --Samofi (talk) 19:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The term Principality of Hungary in this context isn't used by any scholar. However, the subject is notable and parts of it can be moved to Hungarian invasions of Europe or a new article titled Hungarian confederation or a similar term used by scholars can be created.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 00:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-The Hungarian Academy of Science is not adequate for you? (this is academic source) "Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae" (published by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Volume 36, 1982: "Prior to the foundation of the Hungarian Kingdom, in the age of principality, ie between 896 and 1000 AD, the princes of the Arpad dynasty, like the majority of the land-conquering tribes, bore Turkic names"Fakirbakir (talk) 07:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment3 99% of the sources says nothing about Hungarian principality between 896-972, it was a Tribal union. This simple source is a not significant minority view and the neutrality is disputed. And we cannot check it. --Samofi (talk) 07:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many scholars, for example, the ones that were cited earlier, explicitly talk about the "Principality of Hungary", the "Hungarian Principality" or the "Age of Principality". They are unambiguous about that. The Hungarian tribes were led by a "(Grand) Prince" that is why we are talking about a "(Grand) Principality". If you think that these are just minority views, then please cite some scientific sources that claim the contrary. Koertefa (talk) 08:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment4The term prince does not mean that the principality was established: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Prince It could be a "A nobleman of varying status or rank".. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samofi (talk • contribs) 08:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So According to your set of mind the pagan Lithuanian Principality was only a tribal union?Fakirbakir (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover Tribal confederacy means Principality.Fakirbakir (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"So According to your set of mind the pagan Lithuanian Principality was only a tribal union?" - give me a sources about that. "Moreover Tribal confederacy means Principality" - give me a sources. Iam tired from a plenty of your unsourced nationalistic informations, fakes, personal opinions, fairytales or legends.. Majority of sources talks about Hungarian tribal union so article should be renamed. --Samofi (talk) 09:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source: The assebly was ordered to attack the Hungarian Tribal Alliance/Principality [9], You can find a lot of sources about the pagan Lithuanian Principality. This was my final comment here. Because this discussion is closed.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Tribal Alliance (about to become the Hungarian Principality). you again lie and cite not properly --Samofi (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please check the source again. PAGE 20. There is the full sentence. And After that, I expect a pardon from you.Fakirbakir (talk) 10:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One not neutral Hungarian source.. But Okay, one more reason to rename. We have a lot of sources which says about Tribal alliance, confederation or union - just a 3 talks about principality. --Samofi (talk) 10:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The hierarchal organization among the Hungarians doesn't seem to have the traits common to a principality(POlitical Order).--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 12:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its a discussion about the rename of the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Principality_of_Hungary#Requested_move --Samofi (talk) 16:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per sources brought by De728631. The principality existed and the title is correct as per English sources. However I fully agree with dab's comments on cleanup.Divide et Impera (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the terms "Principality of Hungary" and "Hungarian tribal federation" are used in several sources. Árpád and his descendants served as Grand Prince (nagyfejedelem) but we also know after Árpád the princes had no real power.--Norden1990 (talk) 08:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, There are lots of source about Principality of Hungary (see its page and talkpage).Fakirbakir (talk) 11:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per sources. This request indicates that nom's interests are nothing but naming and content. Takabeg (talk) 12:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Should be obvious at this point. Volunteer Marek 11:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Loads of WP:RS and notable as a former country. Bacon and the Sandwich (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:SNOW. HairyWombat 16:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Working People's Vanguard Party

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

A very minor political party, it never even contested an election. Because of this, I do not believe it is sufficiently notable for an article of its own, although it should be (and is) mentioned in the articles on the Liberator Party (with which it later merged) and the Working People's Alliance (which it was involved in establishing), both of which did contest elections. Number 5 7 21:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A minor party but one of historic significance in Guyana, as it influenced larger parties and movements. Its founder Brindley Benn served as deputy prime minister in the country's first elected government. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've expanded the article and added references, including the party's role in criticizing the People's Temple cult in Guyana. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The article is notable, historically significant, and has reliable sources. Northamerica1000 (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Northamerica1000 and Cullen328. Notability is inherited by appearance in several reliable sources.Divide et Impera (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Historically significant minor party. Meets WP:N, particularly with references added by Cullen328.--JayJasper (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, having contested elections or not is not a good criteria for deletions. many notable parties decide not to contest elections on their own, rather supporting the candidatures of other parties for tactical reasons. --Soman (talk) 08:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I favor the lowest of all possible barriers to the inclusion of articles about political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections, regardless of ideology. This is the sort of material that SHOULD be in encyclopedias and deletions of this sort of material only weakens the encyclopedia. If an article needs more sourcing, tag it for more sourcing. Carrite (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dal LaMagna

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

Non-notable former presidential candidate who has never received any degree of electoral success or mainstream coverage. None of the sources in the article demonstrate notability, and all fail the RS criterion. It's worth noting that LaMagna received only eight primary election votes when he ran for president in 2008, finishing far behind Ole Savior (whose article was recently deleted at AFD on notability grounds). The companies LaMagna founded don't seem to be notable either. Difluoroethene (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Individually I don't think these things amounnt to much but together I would say it makes this a weak keep. I also think that there are enough references to write a decent article. --Kumioko (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Three SPA's have edited this page, including this one, this, and This one who appears to be LaMagna himself. Difluoroethene (talk) 05:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There does not appear to be signficant coverage on the subject in reliable secondary sources, thus no evidence of notability. Fails WP:POLITICIAN as well as WP:N.--JayJasper (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as Jay says above. It fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:N.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- He is called a business man, activist, and 2008 presidential candidate in the lead, but there is barely any info on that. SOXROX (talk) 21:04, 8 September 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) 23:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guy_Nason

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

Does not seem to satisfy WP:PROF. Max-brod (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)— Max-brod (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep — based solely on his receipt of guy medal in bronze from the rss, clearly falling under wp:prof#2, not to mention the ever-popular h-index of 17 — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clear keep as above. Searching for G P Nason in GS I get a h-index of 20 with four hits with over 100 cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep – The individual's accomplishments are notable, and the article has reliable references. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Received a significant award, fairly high citability, several journal editorships - enough here to pass WP:PROF#C1. Nsk92 (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The edit history of the nominator is interesting. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

comment — fascinating indeed. if you believe his userpage, he was born in 1824. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Allow me to point out that the article was also created by an editor with next to no other edits (User:Boby1001). Moreover, the user making the most edits to the page was an IP editor logging in from the subject's home institution (namely, User:137.222.80.43). Max-brod (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: due to publications - h-index - associate editorships etc but I am not sure about the RSS's Bronze Guy Medal being enough for our WP:prof #2 even though it helps for overall notablility. (WP:prof #2 .The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.) The text from the RSS reads The Bronze Medal may be awarded to fellows, or to non-fellows who are members of a section or a local group, in respect of a paper or papers read to a section or local group or at any conference run by the Society, its sections or local groups, or published in any of the Society's journals. Preference will be given to people under the age of 35. Exceptionally two or more authors of a paper/papers may be considered for the award provided they are members of sections or local groups. [10]. I think for a single nice paper, specially from someone younger than 35, might be pushing it a bit. (I am a member of the RSS) (Msrasnw (talk) 10:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Comment: I must admit I was not aware that there was an h-index level (17, apparently) virtually guaranteeing entry. Is this the case? Surely this should vary from field to field? Note also that the guidelines mention subjects that are editors-in-chief - no mention of associate editorships is made. Max-brod (talk) 16:15, 11 September 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. v/r - T P 00:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of golf courses in Iowa

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

WP is not a directory. TBM10 (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per Wikipedia is not a directory, the article is appropriate, as the article has an organized focus and is not, per Wikipedia directory guidelines, like "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". The article can also serve to promote the creation of new articles for notable golf courses. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only one item on the list is bluelinked, and even that item seems to be non-notable, meaning that if the list were populated, it would indeed serve as a linkfarm or directory. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The item on the list that wasn't mentioned in the nomination to delete above, Duck Creek Park and Golf Course, is notable per Wikipedia guidelines for establishing notability (refer to references section in the article). The logic that other links on the list being bluelinked would lead to the article itself being a linkfarm is false, because only notable articles should be created, and linkfarms are listed per linkfarm as:

– Mere collections of external links or Internet directories.

– Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for lists to assist with article organization and navigation; for these, please follow the guidelines outlined at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lead and selection criteria.

– Mere collections of public domain or other source material

– Mere collections of photographs or media files

Lists with links to other Wikipedia articles would not be a linkfarm, because they would be links to Wikipedia articles, not external websites. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the references (ie. the ones that are not trivial, passing mentions) all appear to be not only local but affiliated - the entity that administers the park is not exactly a third-party source that can attest notability! And yes, I'm obviously aware that a list of links to other Wikipedia articles is not a linkfarm, but if these other courses are non-notable and articles cannot be created, we're not going to get that list of bluelinks. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Purge all empty sections and non-notable entries.Stuartyeates (talk) 07:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is not a directory. If Northamerica1000 thinks that this list is appropriate, then the sky is the limit: we'll get "List of restaurants in Iowa", "List of bakeries in Iowa", etc... -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 00:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All Things Digital

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

contested prod. i can find no third party discussion of this website anywhere, although there are passing mentions aplenty, prod contestor asserted that there was some, but gave no examples. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The blog is part of WSJ online. The passing mentions aplenty will include other blogs/news sites mention All Things Digital as the site that broke the news, got the interview etc. The reason given for deletion was 'Spam'. This Article just needs improvement or merging into the A. I know nothing about a contestor asserting there were 3rd party discussions, but to kick off the examples:

Here is the citation from the article of Walter Mossberg. What was his column 'Personal Technology' in the WSJ now is All Things Digital http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.05/mossberg.html?pg=1

Again, the All Things Digital article just needs some work, not deletion. It could be merged as a section in the articles on the founders or the redirect from the D: All Things Digital to Walt Mossberg could be removed (in time) and a new All Things Digital/D: All Things Digital article be made. Deletion of this article would impede improvement. PrtScn (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment — the article from wired mentioned above is about walter mossberg, not this website. it does mention the conference, although not the website. and that only in passing. the conference itself may or may not be notable, but it is not under discussion here, and it doesn't lend any notability it might have to a website that is a spinoff of it. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the conference is notable. There are alternatives to deletion for this article. The site is a tech news blog under the WSJ banner so finding the 3rd party discussions to solve the notability issue will be hidden under some very expensive SEO work to get ALL Things Digital urls to the top of the rankings for anything you can search for with 'All Things Digital' as part of the search string. Norlam editing will bring this article up to scratch or see it merged with another.PrtScn (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - as others mentioned, the All Things Digital conference is one of the most prominent conferences in the digital industry, with Walter Mossberg and the WSJ crew consistently pulling in the top names and CEOs in the field. The blog has a lineup of journalists that are must-reads in each of their fields. How this can be up for deletion is baffling. -- Fuzheado | Talk 03:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment — the conference may well be notable, but the article under discussion is about the blog, not the conference. this deletion discussion may in fact be baffling; many things are, but where is the third party discussion of this blog? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Run-of-the-mill IT publication, no notability established. References are only self references, not third-party. Seems like an advertisement anyway. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 12:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Norman

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

Search did not return any WP:RS and he does not meet the guideline for WP:N Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails GNG. Hairhorn (talk) 20:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources WP:RS to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The sources offered are all either primary (by the subject) or, in the case of the Sky reference, a dead link. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Jackal (blogsite)

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

Delete The A7 speedy deletion tag was rightfully declined but this should still be deleted. No indication is given that this blog has any importance. Actually that's not quite true: some indication is given that the author is viewed by other bloggers as an idiot, a troll and a plagiarist. I guess it's better than nothing but it's not necessarily a good sign and it certainly doesn't even come close to the basic notability requirements. (Bonus deletion marks for the fact that the username suggests that the article's author is also the blogger) Pichpich (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blog sites aren't generally notable. ArcAngel (talk) ) 19:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article documents a blogsite. A generalization is not a reason for deletion.

Please note that a previous comment of mine was removed from this page when parts of it were not included in the talk page. I have attempted to address this by accessing the history and reintroducing the deleted content. Please take a care to edit accordingly. I would prefer all arguments to be maintained in their entirety. Jackal lady luck 12:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no attempt to hide the fact that the administrator of The Jackal is also the writer of the article in question. The article raises notable topics of interest concerning Netiquette and Internet law that requires further consideration, therefore it should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackal lady luck (talk • contribs) 01:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was not to say that the fact was hidden but simply to point out that the resulting conflict of interest was extra incentive to delete the article. Pichpich (talk) 02:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another question about "notable topics of interest concerning Netiquette and Internet law". Even by your own account, the story goes like this: troll trolls, troll gets banned, troll threatens bogus lawsuit, people laugh at troll's threats, troll threatens bogus lawsuit about laughing at him. And as far as I can tell, that's the end of the story since it's obvious to all that the lawsuits were just a slightly more elaborate form of trolling. In any case, this is very far from anything resembling a notable Netiquette-related or Internet law-related incident. Pichpich (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And one last thing. It's being argued on the article's talk page that the blog meets the notability requirements because "the content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators". It is true that some of the blog posts are reposted on the fairly well-known blog-collective The Standard but we're talking about one post every ten days or so and 12 posts in total. [11] Pichpich (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The validity of the references does not seem to be in question, just the notability of the publications. An argument should not be made on assumptions. Even if further reference to validate was required, statistical information is currently unavailable.
A Wikipedia search of "notable topics of interest concerning Netiquette and Internet law" has no results. Please clarify? I have referenced material and documented what happened, I have not written a personal account. Privately threatening a Lawsuit is not a form of trolling.

Are we talking about the same incident? You threatened a freedom of speech suit when banned for trolling someone's website. If you were not serious, it's a form of trolling. If you were being serious, I'm afraid I have to suspect complete idiocy. Pichpich (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please acquaint yourself with the Wikipedia:Civility standard and be nice to the newbie. Jackal lady luck 06:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I am neither an Inclusionist nor a Deletionist, and have shown that the article is unbiased by providing a potentially valid (emotive) reason for deletion within the article. Trying to discredit the article because of the authors previous conduct outside of Wikipedia is not a valid argument.
A number of works have been published within the contested reference. The timeline of those republications should be considered. The notability of the work is not only defined by the amount of publications referenced. There is no question that a reputable and independent organization has chosen to republish those works. Therefore the article meets Wikipedia:Notability (web) Criteria (3). Jackal lady luck 12:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Keep There is no conflict of interest as the article is unbiased and written from a Neutral point of view. Notable use of the OCILLA, Notable use of Blogger. Blog sites and references are notable. No defined republishing amount stated: Wikipedia:Notability (web). The article meets criteria (1)(3) for notability. Republishing signifies importance. Site content is relevant and notable: Google search The Jackal. Jackal lady luck 22:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Delete. I don't really think the WP:COI needs to be brought up right now. While writing an article about yourself or something you own is generally frowned upon in the community, it seems to be coming from a pretty neutral standpoint.

JLL, you keep saying that the article meets criteria 3. It seems a weak case, but I understand where you're coming from. Still, taken from WP:WEB: However, meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee that Wikipedia should have a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to the content. I don't think a dozen or so blog posts relisted by The Standard meets notability standards. Also, the bulk of the contents in the article is a feud between bloggers. I don't think there is a solid reason this article needs to be on Wikipedia. Ish dar ian 13:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article also meets criteria (1). The reference has multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. Jackal lady luck 21:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you give some examples? I tried to look through them, and I didn't see any that were really "significant coverage in reliable independent sources". But I might have missed some. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Standard is a reliable and independent source. The Jackal's articles are published elsewhere in the New Zealand Blogosphere. Would you like me to list them all? Lifebaka declined speedy delete: "decline, giving benefit of the doubt based upon refs, and supposing that republishing signifies importance." *J L L 08:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The link you provided above does not appear to meet Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines. As for your criteria one claim, the policy states, verbatim: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. The content, in this case, is your site. I looked through all the refs in the article and did a brief Google search, and I was unable to find and reliable sources that discussed your site, aside from the Standard. The case with the Standard is not that IT is unreliable. The problem seems to be that it has been the only one to repost anything about your site. While it has reposted a dozen or so articles, it is still a singular source. The criteria three claim is a bit of a stretch to me, but the claim that the article meets the first criteria does not seem plausible. Ish dar ian 11:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No disrespect in pointing out the obvious, but a blogsite is not automatically a trivial publication, as defined by the criteria. Multiple meaning many, ie 12 independent publications as referenced. You should not lump those publications into a singularity. The guideline does not state that the republication has to occur on multiple outlets, just that there needs to be multiple republications that are independent and unbiased. The sites referenced in the article are not indiscriminate sources, the work published is not trivial in nature. The fact that those articles are then widely read on the second highest most popular Blogsite in New Zealand should be considered. The included information is verifiable. The article is new and requires more time to include items, which will increase its notability. The article is notable as defined within the shorter description of the word. The article should be kept or merged, there is no reason for a delete. J L L 22:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is that the references themselves should be independent of the subject, that is, independent of the Jackal. The Standard is not really independent of its own content. Also, the mauistreet example you gave just above isn't really significant coverage; that entry doesn't even really talk about the Jackal blog. It's something, but it isn't wp:GNG on its own, certainly. "Would you like me to list them all?"—Just, say, 2 good ones. Thanks! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Jackal is independent of The Standard. They're separate blogs operated on entirely different platforms and run by completely different people. Please contact The Standard if you need further clarification of this. The Standard selects the articles through a process I have no information on. Perhaps they think the articles selected are notable. I have no control over that process or what articles are chosen for inclusion on The Standard. The Standard is reputable, independent and makes note of who wrote the articles at the top of the post. The Standard does not create the content, it republishes. I have already referenced multiple articles that have been independently republished. J L L 02:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realize they are separate, but in some sense they are not totally independent. In any case, these aren't references about the subject, are they? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—The sources don't appear to establish notability, they are mostly other bloggers whining about the subject. I don't think the level of redistribution on The Standard establishes notability. This article appears to essentially be self-promotion, what Wikipedia:Conflict of interest was written for. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 14:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:Attack page also borderline WP:GNG / borderline WP:N. Disclaimer: I'm a New Zealand and an active member of WP:NZ, but I'd never heard of this blog or this article until this nomination. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —SimonLyall (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Standard (blog). I think The Standard as one of the top 5 NZ political blogs probably qualifies for a place. Since this blog is a small subset of that then this probably doesn't. - SimonLyall (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure if that is a worthwhile redirect. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure it makes sense to think of it as a "subset" since the overwhelming majority of posts on the Jackal blog are not reposted on the Standard. Pichpich (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, self-promotional. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is referenced entirely from the blogosphere. May not even deserve a mention in the New Zealand blogosphere article. As an WPNZ member and NZer I also have not heard of this blog. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No more notable than hundreds of other low-traffic NZ blogs. I have never seen reference to the blog anywhere other than The Standard, where the blog's writer regularly republishes posts or summaries of posts as comments. The contributor's effort would be more usefully spent creating an article for The Standard itself. Daveosaurus (talk) 03:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not noteable. I've never seen a reference to it in the NZ media, and the blog does not have sufficient traffic to be independently noteworthy. --IdiotSavant (talk) 01:23, 12 September 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 K. T. Kunjumon. v/r - T P 00:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kodiesvaran

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

The film was announced in 1996 and has been shelved. Clearly fails WP:NFF Commander _{(Ping Me)} 18:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sense in keeping this article around if the project is now dead. ArcAngel (talk) ) 19:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Movie never got to release and no major coverage even of that in sources (I checked all cites and most of them don't actually even mention it--as if they were just directory-entries of current projects that got elided when the project died). DMacks (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I created this page so I would say Keep, because the film received heavy publicity during it's period of production. The film was widely touted to be the most expensive Tamil film ever produced at the time - and hence gains notability in that respect. However, as like most other foreign language films, sources are far and few online - and I guess that does reduce it's chances of surviving this AfD. Universal Hero (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NFF does not mandate deletion. Toward failed films it instructs "...films produced in the past, which were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines." So rather than simply delete it as a failed project, we need to determine whether or not the coverage available for this failed film might then allow its failure to be notable per the guidelines. It would seem reasonable at the least that it could also be redirected to a sourced and historically contextual mention elsewhere. Suggestions? Possibilities? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting would be a good option. I did that a few days ago but someone reverted back stating that the article was created after the film got shelved. --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 11:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what happened. That User:Editor 2050 disagreed with your redirect was a suitable reason to take it to AFd for wider discussion, and whomever closes this AFd can do the redirect. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 6 September 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. v/r - T P 00:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of golf courses in Jakarta

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

Not notable enough for WP. The article is poorly referenced and liable to going out of date.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only one bluelink, and that golf course is itself of questionable notability. WP:NOTDIR. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per Wikipedia is not a directory, the article is appropriate, as the article has an organized focus and is not, per Wikipedia directory guidelines, like "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". The article can also serve to promote the creation of new articles for notable golf courses. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Regarding the nomination for deletion above: No rationale was provided to qualify the statement that the article the author mentioned above, but did not state, the Royale Jakarta Golf Club, is of questionable notability. Without qualification for the statement, there's no basis for it. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the notability requirements for golf courses might be, but Royale Jakarta Golf Club certainly doesn't pass the general requirements, with only these passing mentions to show for. Anyway, that's not why we're here: Delete since at best this is a list of one. The topic (Golf courses in Jakarta") might well be notable, but since there aren't any articles, a list thereof is utterly redundant and nothing but an invitation to spam, IMO. I could suggest a redirect to List of golf courses in Jakarta, but that doesn't exist, and Category:Golf clubs and courses in Indonesia only has one member. So, delete. BTW, Northamerica, the nominator's comment was perfectly valid. You may ask for more detail, but they can say that if they want to. Drmies (talk) 02:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – To clarify, the article passes all eight points of WP:NOTDIR. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't pretend that Moses wrote those laws and governs their interpretations. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – No disrespect intended, but there are other internet sources available to establish notability besides Google News. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken. I was visiting libraries when we had card catalogs and you had to write down the call number and give it to the librarian. I encourage you to find those non-Google sources (you seem to presume they exist) and add them to the article. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Drmies. Redundant list. Keb25 (talk) 07:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Virtually any list article on Wikipedia could be stated as redundant. Redundancy does not reduce notability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only one course is actually referenced (via blue link to article). with the rest removed, its not a list any more. if someone cares about this, start creating articles on them, and when you are at about half a dozen, go ahead and recreate.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR Purge non-notable entries fails WP:GNG Stuartyeates (talk) 07:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is not a directory. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:04, 12 September 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. v/r - T P 00:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Golf Courses in Jacksonville, Florida

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

Lack of notability for WP. The article relies solely on one source and is liable to going out of date as existing golf courses close or amend their membership policy, or new ones open. TBM10 (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. What's next? List of poker clubs in London, List of coffee bars in the United States? --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per Wikipedia is not a directory, the article's inclusion on Wikipedia is appropriate, as the article has an organized focus and is not, per Wikipedia directory guidelines, like "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". The article passes all eight points of WP:NOTDIR. Furthermore, the article can also serve to promote the creation of new articles for notable golf courses. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The article also has several links to notable articles, which further qualifies the article as being functional and notable as a list article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of which is about "a golf course", the others being larger establishments that incorporate golf courses with other facilities, and which are presumably notable for various reasons unrelated to the subject of this list.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete certainly if more than half were notable, it would be worthwhile for such a list. but many of these are probably quite small non notable courses. the fact that you can't use this list for much more than working out these small courses exist. there are probably 10,000s of golf courses worldwide, are we going to create lists for each geographic region they're in? LibStar (talk) 06:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but trim out ALL nonlinked courses until a reference is found. Golf courses are fairly notable chunks of land, not as permanent as cemeteries, but similar to most parks, not likely to go away soon, and notable for having existed if they do go away.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR Purge non-notable entries fails WP:GNG in it's current state. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory. Agree with Pontificalibus, if this is allowed, the sky is the limit! -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:03, 12 September 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. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Le Billon

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

Unreferenced WP:BLP fails WP:ENTERTAINER. I can find a handful of references in reliable sources which confirm that the subject exists (e.g. [12][13]) but nothing which constitutes substantial coverage. Pburka (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe a reasonable argument can be made that when considered with his theater work, being a named character in 14 episodes of At Home with the Braithwaites and the major character of Brian Drake in 97 episodes of Hollyoaks over three years, we have him meeting the instructions set forth in WP:ENT. The aforementioned are verifiable. Time now to see if his work in theater has received notice. I'll be back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Report: The full length article about the actor in Back Stage [14] would be considered both significant and substantial coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}
Withdrawn. Thanks for the good save, User:MichaelQSchmidt. Pburka (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Leão

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

All coverage WP:ROUTINE. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 16:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. – HonorTheKing (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Please note that FOOTYN (not the same as NFOOTY!) is only an essay i.e. somebody's opinion. It is not an accepted guideline. Giant Snowman 22:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Should he ever make his debut, he would be notable, but until then he fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG, and as such should be deleted. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Life^talk 15:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Any assumption of notability would be based on a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. – Pee Jay 18:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Nomination was missing step three. It has now been listed. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hmmm...is it snowing? ArcAngel (talk) ) 20:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most definitely. In spite of the fact that it wasn't listed properly, this afd has received sufficient attention imo. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hasn't this nomination been going long enough yet? – Pee Jay 20:59, 12 September 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. v/r - T P 00:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warlock class destroyer

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

Entirely in-universe treatment of a fictional element from a TV science fiction series. Almost completely unsourced, no documentation of notability, not a hint at any out-of-universe perspective. Compare parallel case of Victory class destroyer, also nominated. There seem to be yet more of this kind. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge (selectively merge) to EarthForce, the article which describes the fictional fleet of which this is a member, unless multiple independent and reliable secondary sources can be found with significant coverage. A general encyclopedia such as Wikipedia is not a suitable site, such as a dedicated fanWiki, to regurgitate every small detail about every gadget described from a fictional work. This appears to be sourced to the fictional franchise (primary source) and to a book published by that company (not an independent source). Edison (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that EarthForce itself is also entirely in-universe, as are most sister articles. We don't want to just reduce the amount of such material, we want to get rid of the lot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a telling statement. However honest that may be, it's not consistent with building a high-quality encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is getting rid of unsuitable content not consistent with building a high-quality encyclopedia? No bad content is clearly better for the encyclopedia than less bad content. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to list of starships in Babylon 5, which could use a bunch of other things merged into it, too. I am physically separated from my B5 reference library, and so can't look up hardcopy references right now, but believe that there are probably a few RS print references. Regardless of that, a merge is probably the most appropriate encyclopedic outcome. Jclemens (talk) 00:29, 6 September 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. v/r - T P 00:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victory class destroyer

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

Entirely in-universe treatment of a fictional element from a TV science fiction series. Completely unsourced, no documentation of notability, not a hint at any out-of-universe perspective. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteor Smerge (selectively merge) to an article about a higher level aspect of the fiction franchise, unless multiple independent and reliable secondary sources can be found with significant coverage. A general encyclopedia such as Wikipedia is not a suitable site, such as a dedicated fanWiki would be, to regurgitate every small detail about every weapon or type of space ship described in a fictional work. This appears to be sourced to the fictional franchise (primary source), so fails WP:N. Wikipdeia is [[WP:NOT|not an indiscriminate collection of information. Edison (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to list of starships in Babylon 5, which could use a bunch of other things merged into it, too. I am physically separated from my B5 reference library, and so can't look up hardcopy references right now, but believe that there are probably a few RS print references. Regardless of that, a merge is probably the most appropriate encyclopedic outcome. Jclemens (talk) 00:26, 6 September 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. v/r - T P 00:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Evangelous

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

Only a handful of fights, none in the last 3 years, none with notable organizations, none against a notable fighter; fails WP:MMANOT and WP:GNG. TreyGeek (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. TreyGeek (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is not temporary, so the nominator's complaint about "no fights in the last three years" is completely irrelevant here. Joe Louis has not fought in the last three years, and that is similarly irrelevant to his notability. Edison (talk) 17:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose it was a vague way of saying that since this person has had very few fights and none recently, one can assume the subject is not a professional fighter and thus would also not be notable as per WP:ATHLETE. If someone had a long history of fights (whether with a notable organization or not) and hasn't fought recently, they may still be a professional fighter but has retired and/or is deceased. I personally don't see that in this case. --TreyGeek (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He fails to meet WP:MMANOT. He has no fights for a major organization or against a notable opponent (his last 3 opponents have a grand total of 1 victory among them). The article implies he's an active fighter, but that doesn't seem to be the case. However, that's irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. Papaursa (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no doubt he fails WP:MMANOT. Astudent0 (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of football players with a Football League Championship winner's medal

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

The list of players to have won a medal is unreferenced, and just because they were with a team that won the title, it does not mean that player actually won a medal. Also, the Football League Championship is effectively a re-branding of the English 2nd level and it is not apparent that any list should start at this point anyway Eldumpo (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced and will remain unverifiable; as the nominator correctly states, just because the club that you are contracted to won a competition does not mean that you won a medal for it. Plus this is only the 2nd highest league in England. Giant Snowman 16:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and GiantSnowman, but mainly for failing the verifiability test. ArcAngel (talk) ) 20:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Furthermore, there is no link provided to any article that explains what a Football League Championship winner's medal is. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverified and unverifiable - as far as I'm aware no official list is ever published of which players from a given season's champion team actually win a medal. I believe it is based on players having played a minimum number of games, but I have never seen these criteria officially published. It would be interesting to see where the article creator(s) actually got their info from, or if it OR..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mariano Laya Armington

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

Appears to fail notability. After doing a quick google search I failed to find more than 1 or 2 references with limited information. Kumioko (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subject may be just as Notable as Philip Vera Cruz, also active in the Delano strike, most of whose references are in books and not online. I suggest working with the anonymous editor to develop a better WP article. I have left two welcoming messages on his or her page at User_talk:75.50.105.191. I've also sent a message to the Kern County Library to see if they have any sources. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - Although per WP:VER & WP:CITE, reliable sources need not be necessarily available online, I cannot find references for the individual except for a single brief mention on MSNBC, and no mentions in scholarly sources or in books. Often, even if the such sources are not available to read online, they are often cataloged online in a manor that allows researchers to find their print versions. Perhaps the article can be redirected to Delano grape strike, and only material referenced to reliable source(s) be merged as appropriate, without violating WP:DUE. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note, there are two other editors who believe a merge would be appropriate. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree that it lacks notability as it currently stands. A quick Google Books search by me on 2011-09-05 revealed no citations. I also quickly search the indices in several books about the UFW which I own, including a history of the Delano grape strike, and found no mention. I cannot see how this article could be brought up to notability. - 16:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps MERGE parts into Delano grape strike. --Goldsztajn (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I hate to see anyone's work destroyed, but this breaks a lot of rules. The personal recollection aspect is definitely inappropriate for a Wikipedia article, but even moreso without any acceptable sources. (I note here that i have not searched for sources to fix the article, i am relying upon the word of others.) The article cannot remain as is. I would like to see a merge, but how would some other editor know what parts to merge? Richard Myers (talk) 07:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Only notable for his involvement in one event (WP:ONEEVENT), so it should be merged to Delano grape strike. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:10, 12 September 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 Trial and conviction of Joshua French and Tjostolv Moland. v/r - T P 00:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua French and Tjostolv Moland

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

Both of the persons convicted now have their seperate articles, in addition to a third article about the trial. Solotaig (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. We cannot delete the history of the article before a split—deleting that record of contributors to the article will create issues with the GFDL licensing of the article! I have reverted the split into the article's situation before Solotaig's attempted split this morning; since French and Moland don't appear to be individually notable, three articles don't appear to be warranted, only one. —C.Fred (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Wikipedia has routines for dealing with articles that are superfluous. And wikipedia has routines for dealing with record of contributions, even after an article is deleted. Please do not play the "alarmist card"!

If C.Fred is concerned about having 3 articles about 3 seperately notable subjects, then maybe he can suggest merging absolutely all wikipedia articles into one. I am sure that he can concoct a good reason for doing so.--Solotaig (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not playing the alarmist card; I'm discussing the notability of the subjects and whether they warrant an article(s). If they aren't notable enough for an article as a group, they aren't notable enough for separate articles. I think there is sufficient notability, and whether or not to split is not a discussion for AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the nomination for deletion stated nothing about lack of notability. (But please feel free to nominate the article for deletion for that reason if you feel like it.) Please do not try to turn the discussion into "If they aren't notable enough for an article as a group" — your words. Now it seems that you are trying to deal the "manipulation card".--Solotaig (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any problem with the notability of any of the following articles, then that is a seperate discussion.

Please avoid silly and off-topic discussions of "combining all Wikipedia articles into one article." Edison (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into Trial and conviction of Joshua French and Tjostolv Moland See WP:BLP1E and Wikipedia:Notability (events)#People notable for only one event which says "People known only in connection with one event should generally not have an article written about them. If the event is notable, then an article usually should be written about the event instead." These two are known only for one thing, a crime, and it is inappropriate to have two, three, or four articles about them and the one event they are known for. A merge could preserve the editing history and satisfy GFDL. Edison (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per Edison (a rename will be necessary though); BLP1E is spot-on. See also WP:CRIME. There's very little to say about the individuals (as opposed to, say, other notorious Norwegian Anders Behring Breivik, which is why he has his own article separate from 2011 Norway attacks), so everything should be merged into the one article on the event. Thanks Solotaig for calling to our attention the fact that this was fragmenting into a lot of redundant articles. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are also notable for being kicked out of Telemark Battalion for trying to recruit fellow-soldiers into a seperate "security organization" in Africa. (I am not sure if they were kicked out together, or at the same time, or on the same charges.) --Solotaig (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into:

Joshua French and

Tjostolv Moland and

Trial and conviction of Joshua French and Tjostolv Moland, and then delete the namesake of this discussion.--Solotaig (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That they are as notable as some of the soldiers on the following list [15], is a seperate discussion.--Solotaig (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at WP:MAD. If this doesn't change your opinion about merging and deleting, please propose another solution for maintaining the history. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did read past the beginning, "While this essay is not a policy or guideline itself, it is intended to supplement ...".

Yeah, I have a suggestion: Change the name of the "Joshua French and Tjostolv Moland" article into "The trial and conviction of ... and ...", and then keep the credits/attributions. (And I hereby waive all and any claims to attribution for my edits.) Then we have one article about each convicted perp and 2 articles with the same name "Trial of ... and ...". And then (and only then) I authorize deletion of "my" trial-article (because I don't give a flying fluck about being credited/attributed.)

Maybe that would be to easy? Because at least 2 of the contributors to this discussion have hinted that the whole things is sooooo difficult if not impossible. Difficult problems require difficult solutions?--Solotaig (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to a history merge to the Trial and conviction of Joshua French and Tjostolv Moland article that Solotaig created, with the combined article retaining the Trial of… title. In fact, that's probably the better solution than a three-way split. Solotaig, if you agree, shall we close this AfD with a speedy keep and move the article thusly? —C.Fred (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the seperate articles about Joshua French and Tjostolv Moland are not included in your suggestion, then I agree. Those 2 articles have to run their own course, as far as receiving seperate nominations for deletion (which will not have my support).--Solotaig (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – There's useful and referenced information that should be merged to Trial and conviction of Joshua French and Tjostolv Moland before the article is deleted and unaccessible. Northamerica1000 (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a problem. Even if/when the article gets deleted, the information will be accessible on my user page [16].--Solotaig (talk) 18:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it won't. That's a copy and paste of the text, not the edit history. —C.Fred (talk) 18:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "... referenced information" is all there! (But the only uncomplicated way of keeping the edit history, is by following your suggestion of 19:03, 5 September 2011 — which I support if my stipulation of 19:13, 5 September 2011 will be heeded.)--Solotaig (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge unless there is sourced activities of them doing stuff together that is unrelated to the arrest and trial (which there doesn't seem to be). Stuartyeates (talk) 08:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all as per WP:BLP1E. Agree with Edison. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 00:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blind Hunger

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

Does not meet criteria of WP:NBOOK; I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 15:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two unique book reviews have been added voicing their own thoughts and opinions on the book. [The book has been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself.[3] This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.] MaxBoothIII (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bram Stoker award recommendation link inserted MaxBoothIII (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An additional unique book review has been added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abnergoodwin (talk • contribs) 19:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC) — Abnergoodwin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I feel this book now meets criteria #1 of WP:NBOOK. If it wins the award it is nominated for, then criteria #2 will have been satisfied. ArcAngel (talk) ) 20:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The reviews cited in the article all seem pretty minor and I can't find anything other than minor website reviews for this book--no newspapers or magazines at all, and nothing Wikipedia considers notable. Google news doesn't return anything. I think the book might be worthy for inclusion if it wins the Stoker award it's apparently been nominated for, but we shouldn't keep articles based on what might happen in the future. Rnb (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Rnb. IMHO, notability is not established by quoting book reviews (every book gets reviewed). -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:20, 12 September 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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marquis Maze

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

Reason Opguip (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC) Does not make the notability guidelines for college athletes[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Maze had over 1,000 receiving yards in his sophomore and junior years. He was a member of Alabama's 2009 national championship team. As a senior in 2011, he is on the watch list for the Biletnikoff Award, and he's the lead receiver, punt returner and kickoff returner for the 2011 Alabama team, the No. 2 college football team in the USA. He had over 250 all-purpose yards in the season opener last Saturday. More importantly, he has been the subject of significant, non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media. As one of the most prominent players on the No. 2 team in the country, the coverage is going to continue week by week as his accomplishments mount, but he's already had enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable college athlete (as of now). Being a member of a notable team does not make a person notable. — X96lee15 (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cbl62. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Easily passes Wikipedia:GNG, See: Yahoo search here and open some of the links. The player is notable. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – More verifiability, Yahoo News:here. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:18, 6 September 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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Location3 Media

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

Written like an ad, awards referenced to own site. fairly clear it is meant as an ad pageCantaloupe2 (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, another interactive marketing agency. Referenced to trade blogs, petty and local trade awards for "Innovation" and such. Unambiguous advertising: Media Agent was developed to aid search marketers in their management of paid search programs. By using Media Agent's tracking pixel, a marketer can view the number of consumers that clicked on an ad, visited the website and completed a desired action (i.e., conversion). Media Agent has backend access to the search engines' APIs, which allows the platform to pull data from the engines and incorporate into detailed reports. The system provides suggestions for optimizing keyword bids and also provides data on keyword usage and performance, allowing marketers to make changes to the terms and phrases used in the campaign, use time and day parting, set geo targeting parameters, view search trends, receive alerts for negative conversation percentages and more. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable firm. Keb25 (talk) 06:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nom and Smerdis of Tlön. Clearly advertisement. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:22, 12 September 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. Any discussion to merge can happen on the talk page. v/r - T P 00:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gya

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

I can find nothing to confirm that this expression is verifiably used somewhere. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The term is used in several geological books: see e.g. [17]. -- 202.124.72.211 (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Year#SI prefix multipliers, as it doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. Unless there are sources actually discussing this term instead of merely using it I fail to see where this topic has significant coverage by third party sources. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Toshio, with just a brief mention of it as an alternate spelling for the measure.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and merge Mya (unit) as well. Both are simply definitions and have no potential to grow into a proper articles. Tya already links there. Yoenit (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tya is not a good comparison, as timescales of trillions of years have little realistic application (the universe only being a few billion years old), whereas Gya, on the other hand, is widely and commonly used because it has common application in multiple branches of science (geology, paleontology, earth science, astronomy). —Lowellian (reply) 19:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - According to the redirect target Tya is thousand years ago, not tera years ago. Yoenit (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Gya is widely used in geology, paleontology, earth science, and astronomy; see [18] [19] [20] [21]. We should no more delete/merge this than we should delete/merge other commonly used units like the gigabyte, which is separate from megabyte. —Lowellian (reply) 19:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The term is verifiably used in many areas. The links above this comment performed by Lowellian disqualifies the rationale for deletion as stated by the nominator Toshio Yamaguchi not finding anything confirming the terms being verifiably used somewhere. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I performed another search and found mentions of this term in several works: [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]. The problem with all the sources presented here are in my opinion that they are either not reliable or those which are (I found one article in a peer reviewed journal: [28]) only simply use the term. Wikipedia is not a dictionary however, so unless someone can bring up sources which discuss the concept behind Gya I still think this article should be merged. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Year#SI prefix multipliers. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:12, 8 September 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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technology resourcing

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

Not notable, no assertion of notability. Back-office ouitfit. No references. No third party sources and article has been around since 2006 Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very spammy...they're all over the web, but seem to completely lack significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. I'm happy to reconsider if someone can find such coverage. (This is at least a good try, but I'm not sure if freelancesupermarket.com meets WP:RS & I don't think its coverage is of sufficient depth to meet notability guidelines.) — Scientizzle 15:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a free web host for advertisements: ....recruitment specialists, sourcing technology and engineering professionals for Permanent Staff appointments and for Contract, Consultancy and Interim Managment assignments for a diverse range of clients.... You are using capital letters improperly as well. Pande manum. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possibly even a g11 as entirely promotional. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 12 September 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. Courcelles 09:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huwico

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

Spam. Xyz or die (talk) 08:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 08:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as A7 How that did survive for almost 6 years is a mystery. Yoenit (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7 (Company) or G11 - Non-notable company. -Porch corpter (contribs) 11:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 00:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Fielding

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

Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no references to prove the notability. MehranVB ^☻talk 08:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable No real sense of any assertion of notability. (Note AfD tag on the article appears not link correctly here - red-link) Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing improvements are certainly needed, but the consensus has already established that city councillors in major metropolitan cities are always notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, and Fielding is not somehow a uniquely non-notable member of his major metropolitan city council; valid sources are out there if somebody gets off their ass to find them. Keep but tag for improvement. Bearcat (talk) 04:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable city councillor. Fails WP:GNG. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He passes WP:POLITICIAN as a member of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city. My personal opinion is that this criteria may be too inclusive. The criteria also fail to define what constitutes a major metropolitan city (is there any other kind of city?). Pburka (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG: significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Passes WP:POLITICIAN: included in "members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city". References have been added to support both of these assertions, and it's quite clear that the individual meets our notability guidelines. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I should note that per WP:OUTCOMES city councillor's aren't notable just for being on city council. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I should note per the same page they aren't non-notable just because they're on city council, and that even if OUTCOMES argued this GNG and N both trump it. Do you have a substantial and correct argument to make about this specific city councillor? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - City council doesn't make them notable alone. They need to have done something else besides being on city council, which Fielding hasn't done. Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, according to both N and GNG Fielding is notable because he has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Which policy argues that someone who is "only" a councillor for a major city is not notable despite such coverage? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm going from memory, but i think the only two cities for which we have kept members of the council routinely are NYC and Chicago, as exceptions due to the particularly important role of the council in the actual government of those two cities. DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Run-of-the-mill councillor, no notability proven. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references already in the article are a good start, and combined with two more that I found (from a national source, no less), there's more than enough here to meet WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:59, 12 September 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. Jafeluv (talk) 10:36, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Captain James Buxton

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

Genealogical biography of subject that is not known for fame, achievement, or notoriety. Article combines material from three unreliable and contradictory sources to reach a conclusion not stated or consistently supported by any of the sources. One reference is an individual's collection of unauthenticated research material presented on Ancestry.com, another is a name listed among hundreds with no indication that the name on the list refers to the subject of the article, and the third reference is a personal hobbyist's website. Professional genealogical studies and research are only considered reliable, when based solely on primary documentation. Anything less is wishful thinking. See WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:SYNTH. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 05:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence subject is notable. TallNapoleon (talk) 09:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy; notability not established. Matching family details of findagrave links [here] and [here] both give yearofdeath as 1817 and state military service, but do not meet WP:SOLDIER; WP:N and WP:GNG not demonstrated, barring additional sourcing. Dru of Id (talk) 12:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to be especially notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy - subject does not appear to be notable per WP:SOLDIER, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:GNG. Most references are genealogical ones, and on the balance are not considered reliable sources. The article looks like good work by the user, but the subject does not meet notability requirements are previously stated, and thus should not be lost, and possibly userfy'd. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:05, 6 September 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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Candy Butchers (album)

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

This album seems to lack notability, and the band doesn't have its own page, which appears to have been intentionally merged to the lead singers article. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree, doesn't meet notability guidelines. JoshuaJohnLee ^{talk softly, please} 04:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:29, 12 September 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. v/r - T P 03:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of unincorporated communities in Alberta

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

List is incomplete and is biased to only a handful of Alberta's numerous rural municipalities. Two requests for populating a list for the balance of the province have gone unheeded on the article's talk page. The article's creator was notified of the second request on the creator's talk page. Although it is unlikely a list of every single unincorporated community in Alberta may never be complete since there are so many, no effort has been made to at least cover the entire province. Hwy43 (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further detail about the insufficient coverage noted above, here is a breakdown of the list article's coverage:

includes three or more unincorporated communities from nine of Alberta's 74 rural municipalities;
includes less than three from seven of the remaining 65 rural municipalities; and
includes just one from the dozens of Indian reserves in Alberta.

Therefore, this is far from a comprehensive and unbiased list that covers all rural municipalities and Indian reserves in Alberta. The article is also unreferenced. Hwy43 (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, get to work, then. — AjaxSmack 00:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator does not seem to argue that the topic is not notable, but only that the list is incomplete. Please remember that Wikipedia is a work in progress. Instead of deleting an incomplete list, we ought to improve it by adding to it through the normal editing process. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject, as a list, is encyclopedic. CJCurrie (talk) 05:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no definition of an unincorporated community, it could literally be every populated quarter section in Alberta. 117Avenue (talk) 05:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

117Avenue is correct. Alberta (Alberta Municipal Affairs) and Canada (Statistics Canada or Natural Resources Canada) publish no definition of unincorporated community. That should bring the topic's notability into question as none of the listed articles can be "confirmed" to be "unincorporated communities". As a result, inclusion of any article in this list might be considered original research. Hwy43 (talk) 06:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but "unincorporated communities" can be taken to simply mean communities that aren't incorporated. What I want to point out is that this list ties into List of communities in Alberta#Unincorporated communities. I favour

Keep, as the list would seem to be encyclopedic and part of a set of lists of Alberta's communities. PK T(alk) 15:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No valid delete rationale has been given. Being incomplete is not a valid deletion rationale, and the supposed bias is merely a function of the list being incomplete. The lack of definition argument is invalid, as the list obviously includes only unincorporated communities with a name, so no, the scope does not include "literally every populated quarter section". Ultimately, we have lists of cities, towns, hamlets and villages. There are also articles on communities that do not fit those categories, and there is value in a list for them too. The current article title sufficiently explains their status, but if there is a better title to be found, it certainly is worth discussing. Reso lute 15:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I consider my family a community, and my family has a name, so can my home quarter be listed? 117Avenue (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can make any ridiculous argument you want. And when the government agrees with you by listing it somewhere, feel free to add it. Reso lute 20:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are you suggesting by that link? That only communities listed by Statistics Canada be used? As Hwy43 explained above, "unincorporated community" is not a status used by any authority, which puts all these list entries' notability into question, like my family farm. 117Avenue (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then go after the individual articles. As long as the articles are valid, so too is the list. And yes, Statistics Canada finds it useful to make note of these unincorporated communities, which is a reasonable sign that they are valid. Reso lute 20:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but I don't want to be the bad guy. 117Avenue (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that not every article in the list is actually a community, whether currently or historically, such as locations that have a name yet there is no evidence they were ever settled. Hwy43 (talk) 04:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:RUBBISH. And read WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. — AjaxSmack 00:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears consensus will be to keep. Failing some sudden influx of delete votes to swing it the other way, the article should be moved to List of unincorporated places in Alberta following the discussion since not every article in the list actually is a community. A number of the listed articles are simply named locations that provide no evidence they were ever communities, while some assert they were once communities yet aren't supported with references to verify these claims. In the creation of some of these articles, I suspect it was assumed they were formerly communities simply because they were on a map or within a government database under a different term than "unincorporated community". Some have even been deemed "ghost towns" without any references to support they were ever inhabited in the first place, but that is a different issue. Hwy43 (talk) 04:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per Wikipedia is not a directory, the article's inclusion on Wikipedia is appropriate, as the article has an organized focus and is not, per Wikipedia directory guidelines, like "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". The article completely passes all eight points of WP:NOTDIR guidelines. Furthermore, the article can also serve to promote the creation of new articles for unincorporated communities in Alberta, and is functional and appropriate as a Wikipedia article in list format. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Purge of non-notable entries or Delete as failing WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Deleting communities in the list would make the list less comprehensive, and hence, less encyclopedic, per the definition of purge listed here. Removing the red links would be functional, however, deleting communities that don't have articles about them isn't congruent with building an online encyclopedia. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems like a notable topic. Needs some clean-up and sourcing. But no reason to delete. Dzlife (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable topic, good list for inclusion and certainly better than having separate articles on each of the items on the list. Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

French Fire Drill

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

Non-notable game, possibly made up. -- $Σ talk contribs$ 03:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any reliable sources discussing this game, which may well have been made up for the purpose of creating a Wikipedia article. No, thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whatever this is, it certainly isn't sourced, and I can't find any sources either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Made up. SL93 (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cute, but appears to be made up. No RSes support this that I can find. Hobit (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article insults Wikipedia by linking to an external stub on Chinese fire drill - which then links back here! — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:51, 7 September 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 g11, advertising for unfinished, selfpublished book series, article written by (of course) books' author-to-be. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Time Twins Series

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

Contested prod. Book series with no assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:15, 5 September 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. (WP:CSD#G8) All the linked pages have been deleted. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominant group (disambiguation)

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

Procedural nomination. The page was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Dominant group (disambiguation). Below is the discussion:

All of the disambiguated articles are up for deletion, and Dominant group was deleted. This is not a useful page as this is a non-existent topic, solely exists in the WP:SYNTH of a wikipedia user. Cerejota (talk) 06:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on the larger issue. However if we do end up with all of these "dominant groups" remaining, then we are going to need a disambiguation page. I think the more proper proposal would be to propose to delete the particular instances, not the disambiguation page. I created the disambiguation as a proper response to the proliferation. If the creation of the various dominant group pages was not appropriate, then that should reflect on them, not the disambiguation page.Greg Bard (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Delete - If at least eight of the articles are deleted, then there won't be any use for this page. However, until they are deleted, this page has a use. It should be kept as long as at least three of those articles remain. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 19:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(end of copied discussion)

Cunard (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't imagine any of the articles mentioned on this AfD page surviving their deletion discussions, all of which are pending. Of course, this AfD should not be closed until the AfDs for the underlying articles have been closed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, procedurally I probably shouldn't be voting until the other AfDs are closed, but none of the articles have any chance of being kept, so this page will shortly be without a function. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have no imagination, so I'm stuck with what exists right now. There are articles with ambiguous titles, so a disambiguation page is needed. Either bundle this proposal with the other noms, or relist after the the other discussion has completed with the apparently foregone conclusion. This puts me in agreement with the other !voters, but really, this would be simpler as a {{db-disambig}} once the entries become red links. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be happy with a {{db-disambig}}. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. --Lambiam 15:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's already non-unanimous. No WP:SNOW here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as long as there are pages to disambiguate per above. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete - delete all these bits of silly original research. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:29, 8 September 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 is the strangest AFD I've ever seen. I've made this close without consideration for the MFD which I am considering another discussion. Feel free to DRV if anyone disagrees. v/r - T P 03:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Status Quo (disambiguation)

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

Procedural nomination. The page was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Status Quo (disambiguation). Below is the discussion:

Per WP:TWODABS, this dab page is not needed. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This DAB is needed to resolve a conflict in naming between 5 subjects. The DAB has been vandalized to remove the additional subjects to make it look as if it is a DAB for only 2 pages. Check the history of the DAB and you will see. AQBachler (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This is your favourite argument when someone does not agree with the stuff you add to the dab page to puff it up to make it look like it is needed. This is called gaming the system. You added a nameless Boston dance group to the page and a NY restaurant article which does not exist just so as to puff it up to make it look viable. You even a added a ship without a corresponding article which was removed by another user. For your information the so-called vandalism you are referring to has been explained by proper edit summaries. This is called pointy editing. If you think I am vandalising your puffed-up piece please report me to WP:AIV. I would also duly caution you to cease these baseless claims. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Check your references please. The band was on a major televised show, so not exactly nameless. AQBachler (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant without having an article on Wikipedia and of uncertain notability. You should create that article first, prove it meets the guidelines for notability and then link to the article, after you create it. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A dab page is not needed for this yet. Warden (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - With only two actual articles in it, this dab page is not needed. ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 20:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Status Quo should redirect to Status quo. Both Status quo and Status Quo (band) already have hatnotes for easy access to either article. However, keep in mind that there are a lot of incoming links to Status Quo which need to be changed to Status Quo (band). A bot will be required for this task, please ask someone at WP:BOTREQ. —SW— ^confabulate 00:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and —SW—. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(end of copied discussion)

Cunard (talk) 02:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per earlier discussion. The phrase and the band appear to be the only uses requiring disambiguation. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are more than two articles. I found six, all extant and distinct articles, which I've added to the DAB page. Even if the phrase is deleted there will still be five. There's also Status quo ante bellum but that has its own DAB page so I've added that (although that DAB page looks unnecessary - if it's deleted Status quo ante bellum should be added here too).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough similar terms to create confusion. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unless the main article on status quo is kept, this disam p. is necessary, for there a a number of similar terms that must be distinguished. If it is kept, this can possibly be turned into a suitable hatnote, but it would be rather complicated. DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 12 September 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. v/r - T P 03:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gennadi Sardanashvily

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

Does not pass WP:PROF. This article was created by Gsard, whose username closely resemble that of the subject. Possible COI. H-index of 19 as per Citations Gadget. Only one paper with over 100 citations according to GScholar. No major positions held in any major university. — Fιnεmαnn ^(talk) 01:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A h-index of 19 passes WP:PROF #1 (just). Subject is also editor-in-chief of the International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics. The apparent WP:COI is a concern, but not necessarily a reason for deletion. Subject appears to be a notable Russian academic at a leading university (Moscow State University). -- 202.124.72.211 (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On the website of the journal, he is listed as managing editor. (website) — Fιnεmαnn ^(talk) 15:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:That appears to be the same thing, in this case. -- 202.124.74.25 (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~Keep. I find a GS h-index of 13 19 by counting on my fingers. (Although the citation gadget gives the same number for this uncommon name, I don't recommend its use for more common ones). A pass of WP:Prof#C1, may also pass WP:Prof#C8. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. According to the article about the journal, it has an impact factor of about 0.752. The article was also created by Gsard. This low impact factor may not be sufficient to pass WP:Prof#C8. — Fιnεmαnn ^(talk) 03:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable theoretical physicist (by works) with a notable post (principal research scientist of the Department of Theoretical Physics) at a notable university (Moscow State University). Editorship of the notable journal: International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics - seems to me to indicate a clear pass of our WP:PROF. (Msrasnw (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Comment From what I see from GScholar only one of his paper have over 100 citations. AFAIK a principal research scientist is lower than an assistant professor in hierarchy. And again, the journal he is an editor of has a very low impact factor of 0.752. I don't understand how that counts as notable. — Fιnεmαnn ^(talk) 14:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. (i) In Russian university staff hierachy, "principal research scientist" is equivalent to "full professor": this staff hierachy is: assistant research scientist, research scientist, senior research scientist, principal research scientist. (ii) GScholar does not provide all quotations. The Citation list in Sardanashvily's CV contains more than 1500 quotations, that is rather strong for a mathematical physicist. In mathematical physics, 20-30 references to an article is believed well. (iii) The Impact Factor of IJGMMP is higher than that of such authoritative journals in mathematical physics as J. Geom. Phys., Rep. Math. Phys., Theor. Math. Phys., and it is close to IF of Lett. Math. Phys. The 5-year IF of IJGMMP (1.136) is much more than those of Lett. Math. Phys. and the above mentioned journals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.242.77.174 (talk) 17:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Could you provide references which support what you said about staff hierarchy? And I don't see how a journal is notable because it has higher impact factor than other journals, unless you establish that these other journals are notable for themselves. Also, it is advisable to use an account while commenting on an AfD discussion page. Your IP seems to indicate that you are from Moscow, Russia. To a lot of people this might look like COI. Thank you!— Fιnεmαnn ^(talk) 18:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Dear Fιnεmαnn, sorry, but my Comment first of all is for Administration of WikipediA. Yes, I am from Russia, I am theoretician, and therefore I am an expert in that I say. About Russian scientific staff, one can verify in the article Research fellow (see Russian Federation) where the position "principal research scientist" (Ведущий научный сотрудник) is called the "shief scientific worker" (see Russian variant of this article for details). Let us mention that this position required the second degree D.Sc., after Ph.D. About Journals that I mentioned in the previous Comments, all theoreticians and mathematical physicists know them as very authoritative in mathematical physics. IJGMMP also is not bad if one looks through the list of its authors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.242.77.174 (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I don't want to sound like a dick, but this page is not just for the admins. This is a public page and anyone can comment. And saying that you are an expert in something is not welcomed on Wikipedia (WP:NVC). Actually the article Research fellow seems to contradict your statement. The article is about a research fellow in general, not just in Russia. In U.S. a research fellow is lower in hierarchy than a tenured assistant professor. Since the article is about such people as in the U.S., I find your statement hard to believe. I'm not against research associates having an article. What I am concerned is about is a possible COI in the article. Again from a GScholar search, IJGMMP does not seem to have any papers over 500 citations. And it is relatively new too. Also, please try using an account while commenting. Hope you understand. — Fιnεmαnn ^(talk) 22:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Research fellow indicates that in the UK, for example, "a senior research fellow may be a position of comparable academic standing to a full professorship." ru:Ведущий научный сотрудник indicates that the subject's rank is 2nd from the top in a range from "Junior Researcher" to "Chief Scientific Officer." -- 202.124.72.60 (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Information In Italy, a Russian principal research scientist is considered to be equivalent to an Italian full professor. Namely, in accordance with Schema della correlazione ha i titoli conferiti dal MURST Italiano e dal Ministero della Scienza Russo: Si dichiara inoltre che il titolo di Professor si ottiene per concorso ed e analogo ai titolo italiano di Professoro ordinario - I fascia. Esso e inoltre analogo al titolo russo di Capo di Dipartimento, Direttore di laboratorie e Collaboratore scientifico principale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.242.77.174 (talk) 07:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion of the academic rank held is of little relevance. What counts under WP:Prof is the extent that the person's work has been recognized by others in the form of citations, fellowships, prizes etc. The only recognition by WP:Prof of academic rank is in categories 5 and 6. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

It should be noted that Sardanashvily also is cited as Sardanashvili. The total number of citations of Sardanashvily(i) in GScholar is more than 2.000, including 3 (but not 1) works of more than 100 citations. GScholar's citation list is far from to be complete, and it does not include Russian citations. As was mentioned above, Sardanashvily's CV indicates more than 1600 non-self citations. Let us emphasize that GS is a mathematical physicist, what is an essential difference from theoreticians about a number of citations (in 2-3 times). His publications are qualified more than 100 times in Mathematical Reviews. His works are quoted more than 40 times in English WikipediA and more than 30 times in the others. Google gives about 25.000 results on Sardanashvily(i) search. These are the facts that, in my opinion, point out the GS nobility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.36.108.148 (talk) 07:45, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is WikipediA for information or about notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsard (talk • contribs) 06:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:PROF#8. Journal is ranked 38th among 54 journals in the ISI category Mathematical Physics. Note that ISI is rather selective and that many journals are never even listed in their databases (Scopus is much less selective). This is an area with a low citation density, so an IF of 0.7 is not that bad at all. --Crusio (talk) 00:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to what Crusio said, having even one paper with over 100 citations is highly unusual outside of biomedical sciences, and strongly indicates notability . And, in response to Gsard's ;last question, Wikipedia is not for indiscriminate information, but for information about notable things--both factors are needed for there to be an encyclopedia. But in this case, the individual does pass the bar for notability DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 12 September 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 snow keep. Consensus is that as a recipient of a Gemini Award, Todosey passes WP:ENTERTAINER. Goodvac (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Todosey

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

Non-notable actress. Article has been around over 2 years, and insufficient sources. AfterEllen is a blog and isn't a reliable source. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Give me some time will ya? [29]intelati^talk 01:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have had over 2 years. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Verified recipient of a Gemini Award for a groundbreaking role on Degrassi. Meets WP:ENT. —C.Fred (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly needs sourcing improvements, but a person who has won a Gemini Award (the Canadian equivalent of the Emmy Awards) is most certainly notable enough. Bearcat (talk) 02:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:ENTERTAINER as she has had significant roles in multiple notable films and television shows. Worthy of a {{BLP IMDB refimprove}} tag, which article already has, not an AfD. Hwy43 (talk) 03:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gemini Award and transgender character on Degrassi makes her notable. I have tried to delete less notable Degrassi actors, and failed. 117Avenue (talk) 04:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Winning a Gemini qualifies her for WP:ANYBIO. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Gemini establishes notability (assuming that a major award in Canada is notable). Bella the Ball (talk) 12:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - please note that at the time the article was nominated, it was sourced not only to the AfterEllen site, but also to the Gemini Awards pages, demonstrating notability. While more sources are needed, the appropriate tag for that is {{blp sources}}; AfD is not cleanup. LadyofShalott 13:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable. SL93 (talk) 15:15, 5 September 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. v/r - T P 03:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

K-1 MAX Madrid 2011 International Tournament

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

This is an event with no indication of notability. It appears to simply be routine sports coverage. The event also lacked notable fighters. Papaursa (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another non notable sporting result article with no evidence of notability. LibStar (talk) 12:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with comments by nom and LibStar. Astudent0 (talk) 18:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexia Osborne

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

Actress with just a single credit in an as yet unreleased film. No significant references that would pass the WP:GNG; fails WP:ENTERTAINER, no multiple major roles, no awards etc. Tassedethe (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. The sources in the article do not deal with the subject in enough depth to establish notability, and I could not find sources that could. --Slon02 (talk) 04:05, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ENT MehranVB ^☻talk 08:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete child actress with one "upcoming" film as her career. Short career fails WP:ENT. Lack of coverage fails WP:GNG. This one is waaaaaaaaaaay too soon. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to movie title, this is a no-brainer.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 23:44, 7 September 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. v/r - T P 03:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaica plain music festival

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

First off, the title is wrong, and, if kept, it probably should be moved to ~~Jamaica Plains Music Festival~~ Jamaica Plain Music Festival. Beyond that, this festival does not seem notable to me as a one time, local, and relatively small event (as far as music festivals go, only 1000 in attendance.) BUT, there are some OK sources and its informative and well written. Also, I can't speak of the notability of the performers involved...so I think it at least deserves to stand up to a standard AFD test, and have some more folks with better understanding of notability requirements to take a look. Quinn ^{░ RAIN} 00:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, event has only happened once, had only local bands and local coverage. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Article passes the General notability guidelines, which state “If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.” All of the subpoints of this statement are qualified, (significant coverage, source reliability and being independent of the subject). Article also passes WP:SOURCES, particularly with the Jamaica Plain Gazette source. Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The article title should have each word capitalized, for correct grammar. Northamerica1000 (talk) 05:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I only see one reference of significant coverage and that is the boston.com one. Otherwise, it sounds like a local music festival in which the organization doesn't pass WP:NONPROFIT. Bgwhite (talk) 22:23, 10 September 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. Slon02 (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Style (cooking)

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

Hoax article Dlabtot (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Blatant hoax with attack-page elements. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 03:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Leung (video game)

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not strike me as notable. Editors are invited to look through the history and study the long, long list of external links--I don't see how any of those, or any of the hits found by Google, are to reliable sources. Then again, perhaps the standards for reliable sources are different. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the by, I have blocked the creator--that is clearly a spam/username account. They are, of course, welcome, to start an account that does not seem to represent their company. Drmies (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete no evidence this is any more notable now than when it was last AFDed, which wasn't even a year ago. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Covered by GameAxis.com, GameSetWatch.com, RPGFan.com, GamersHell.com, Gamer.nl, and ImpulseGamer.com (probably RS). On the plus side, the author donated a bunch of cool images to the Commons. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean he posted a number of copyrighted images which we have to delete because we have no evidence of permission? Yoenit (talk) 08:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh. If it really was the author, I bet he'd be willing to prove it and donate the images. But I guess we don't know if it was the author or not. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Article is notable per several sources listed above. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some of the external links that Drmies deleted because he deemed them unreliable. They may not be notable sites, but they are definitely legitimate - look at how many other games they have written about. Indiegames.com article Impulsegamer Review ZTGameDomain Review Indie Game Reviewer Review Default Prime Review Green Man Gaming Review Desura Community Ratings PC Games And Reviews Review Rampant Games Review RPGFan Review Review (Dutch) Indie Superstar Interview Games of Experience Interview kollisionsabfrage Interview (German) By the way, newbie here. I am just editing the discussion to add my comment in. Is that the correct way? Does the timestamp get added in automatically?

To save people time, all of the above that are reliable I already enumerated in my previous listing of sources. The new additions are either self-pub or unreliable. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take Indie Superstar's interview for example, it's definitely a legitimate source since it writes for so many other games, so it should be real and thus reliable. Now then, when you called it self-published, did you mean that the site might have published a made-up interview that the game creators submitted? Diculous (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, let's take that. This page suggests that they're not really that picky or that independent/critical. That "it writes for so many other games", I'm not quite sure what that means, but it's hardly an argument for editorial quality or independence. And of course the site is published by a game developer, Dejobaan Games--all of this together suggests that they are not a reliable source by our standards--see WP:RS. No one is suggesting that they make their stuff up--just that they're not a reliable source. This is an encyclopedia, which has to rely on reliable sources. This is not a gamer site or a blog. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The "other sources" were excluded because they don't seem to be RS to determine whether or not the subject matter is legitimate. However, given that the small number of RS have proven the subject matter to be legitimate, we should move on and include the previously excluded sources to determine its notability - which make it a significantly stronger case. Diculous (talk) 13:28, 12 September 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. v/r - T P 03:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrija Vulić

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

Pretty sure this guy is non-notable, but listing here because most of the possible sources are in Serbo-Croatian (?). I can find some evidence that this guy exists and has performed from time to time, but most of the news articles I can find with this name are for other people (someone active in Muslim organizations, a politician or two). The article itself doesn't make a good case for notability. On his MySpace page he has 13 friends - I'd expect a successful musician to have a few more than this, to put it lightly... Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of news or other coverage of the Chicago-area singer described in the article, and the "official website" does not exist. There seems to be a European journalist by roughly the same name. $Sharktopus$ ^talk 01:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – News piece from Daily News Montenegro here. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it is far from clear that the Sabrija Vulić mentioned is the American singer rather than the Montenegrin journalist. Furthermore, "notability" requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." If there are sources that have written about Vulic, even if those sources are not in English we can probably look at them using Google translator.

Sharktopus

^talk 15:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. v/r - T P 03:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thor Fields

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

Non-notable actor/musician. Some google news hits but nothing substantive as far as I can tell. Pretty underwhelming list of credits, and now he's no longer acting and instead a member of a redlinked Led Zeppelin cover band. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per meeting WP:BIO and WP:ENT. Its easy to agree that the subject fails WP:Band, but book and news serches seem to show his theater and television involvemnet having perhaps enough coverage to meet WP:GNG.[30][31][32][33][34][35]etc.etc. We can ignore that the fellow left acting at 20 to purseue a mucic career, and concentrate rather on that number of years where his coverage gave notability, and remember that while the peak of his notability is past does not make it somehow now non-notable. Some cleanup and sourcing will take place shortly. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the band thing - obviously that's not enough - but I disagree that the coverage you've cited is sufficient. The Weekly World News is a joke, and most of the coverage of Google News is just directory-type mentions of insignificant roles. One of the articles you cite as evidence of notability only says "Thor Fields is a tolerable child actor." Other articles have a similar level of coverage. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remind politely of WP:NTEMP and that while the peak of his notability is past, being past does not make it somehow now non-notable nor non-existant. Wikipedia does not demand that a person whose last major coverage was decades ago must somehow have sustained coverage to this day. I am more inclined to see that per WP:ENT the coverage and sourcable notability for his theater and early television is far more notable than anything that followed.[36][37] And to your point, even the least of the reliable sources that can be found on this fellow are absolute requirements per policy, which policy does not require that the verifibility itself be substantive. In looking, there are sources that do indeed speak about him directly and in detail... even if he is not the sole subject of the article or book. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing that he is non-notable because the peak of his career happened earlier. My point is that I have failed to find any sources that cover him with the requisite depth, including those you mention. The two sources you cite with the most coverage are from the Weekly World News, which is literally a joke (click through to the article) and nothing like a reliable source. The others are mere mentions. What non-WWN articles did you find that are more than trivial mentions? Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stage actors are not the focus of a theater review. They concentrate on the stage production as a whole. That an child sctor is mentioned within a theater review (and not simply in a cast listing) in the context to their performance in that production is acceptable. Of his performance in Camelot the New York Magazine reviewer felt it worth writing "Thor Fields is a tolerable child actor..."[38] That he was serving with Richard Burton, is it no big surprise that NYM concentrated on the famous adult? Variety's film reviews 1987-1988[39] speaks toward his role as Danny Chadman in the Shelly Long film Hello Again stating "...nicely played part by Thor Fields," and Photoplay writes of it as "an appealing film debut by Thor Fields."[40] And his work as a youngster has apparently made it into the enduring record.[41] Playbill writes of him, stating "THOR FIELDS (Tom) made his Broadway debut as Louis in The King and I. He is well known to daytime television viewers, having played the part of Eric Aldrich in the NBC -TV series "The Doctors." In 1979 he was nominated Best Juvenile Actor...".[42] When I track down the nomination, we may have meeting of WP:ANYBIO. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable entertainer or musician. Career highlight was a 3-year stint on a now-forgotten soap opera as a preteen. Extremely unlikely substantial non-trivial coverage in reliable sources exists (see above). On a not-unrelated note, this may be the first time anyone in an AFD has tried to claim Weekly World News(!!!) as a reliable source. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Har dee har har. Did you read anywhere that anyone "claimed" it as a reliable source? What was claimed was that the actor "seemed" ro have received coverage and attention. On a related note, any personal opinion of "now-forgotten soap opera", runs directly contrary to WP:NTEMP. The award-winning soap is still considered notable per Wikipedia's standards. And the other later offered sources are reliable enough, offering content that addresses the actor directly and offering citable detail, even if not the main topic of the sources themdselves. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per additional sources: IMDB listing, TV Guide listing, Rotten Tomatoes listing. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I Men... ke I Den

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

Not notable; it contains no sources at all and contains original research and trivia. Golden Sugarplum (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, get to work, then. You could start by adding cleanup templates instead of knee-jerk nominating something for deletion. — AjaxSmack 01:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for similar reasons:

Strong keep: Per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Broadcast_media: "Television series broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are usually kept as they are considered notable". As for the Silent Hill Dispute, I would argue for keeping it as it is notable, even though the article itself is not in the best shape. Guideline & Policy Wonk (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have completed this nomination by adding the dicusssion to the AfD log for August 29. I express no opinion on the nomination. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 06:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 06:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Guideline & Policy Wonk. AfD is not cleanup. — AjaxSmack 01:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article is notable, and is about a television series broadcast nationally by ANT1, a television network airing in Greece and Cyprus. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:23, 6 September 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. v/r - T P 03:47, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cranbourne-Frankston Road

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

No evidence this road is notable. Numbered routes are generally encyclopedic topics, but not every section is independently notable. Article contains no sources. Kinu ^t/_c 06:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Precedent already exists for inclusion, for example, refer to: List of roads and highways. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; does not appear to be notable. That a small proportion of other roads have articles does not justify keeping this one; it's totally unsourced and seems to be non-notable. bobrayner (talk) 08:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:38, 8 September 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. v/r - T P 03:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bolivian express

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

Unremarkable publication. No third party references given. Biker Biker (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Sources: U.S. News and World Report article about internship with Bolivia Express. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Added reference above to article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Um, the usnews reference you added was an ad posted by Bolivian Express. A newly started, free magazine. I see ads out there for volunteers and others saying a new magazine has started, but nothing that offers significant coverage. Bgwhite (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Bgwhite. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:40, 8 September 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 KAZENERGY Eurasian Forum. I'm going to be a little bold to resolve this. When a conference series is notable , we usually make articles about a series of conferences, not individual ones . The relevant contents has been moved to KAZENERGY Eurasian Forum, no redirect is needed to preserve the history, but its a possible search terms, so I'm closing Delete and Redirect. I removed a good deal of promotional content at the combined article also, and perhaps a further trim is needed--for this & also the earlier conference sections there. DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6th KAZENERGY Eurasian Forum

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

The article is pretty much a program for a conference, and that's not what encyclopedias publish. Content aside, I can't find any justification for the topic as being of encyclopedic relevance (per WP:N etc). Drmies (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is purely informative. Most of worlds economic/energy forums have similar articles in Wikipedia. Legapan (talk) 1:04pm, 29 August 2011
- The question is not whether it is informative or not; my contention is that it does not pass notability guidelines. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is also about encyclopedic or not. Is the listing of schedule at a local stadium useful? Yes to the users of stadium. Its certainly something to go on the management's website, but upcoming schedules do not belong in the encyclopedia entry about the stadium. Wikipedia is not a program guide.WP:NOTDIR Cantaloupe2 (talk) 09:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The general guideline for notability is whether a subject has been covered in secondary sources; none are cited in the article currently. —C.Fred (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added secondary sources, which were used in this article, in reference part. (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the article is a train-wreck, but there are references. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or rename and revise. The sixth Kazenergy Forum is not the subject for encyclopedic coverage. However, Kazenergy Eurasian Forum would be a fine topic, since it is an important event with notable attendees within one of the main sectors of the Kazakhstan economy. The article should discuss the event, and note key elements of each year's program/ guest list. However, the current article is better off as an independent web page, rather than using Wikipedia as a hosting service for conference details. Bella the Ball (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The article could be easily merged into a new article Kazenergy Eurasian Forum, I've improved the article significantly. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOT#PROMO, as this is essentially an advert for a conference. Sources provided appear to be nothing more than copies of press releases, which is not independent coverage by reliable sources and cannot be counted toward establishing notability. Could not find significant independent coverage (particularly since said conference will only occur in October).--70.80.234.163 (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
agreed. weak keep. ~~delete~~.

The promotional material and anything that is only pertinent to the upcoming event should not be here. It is not encyclopedic. I have edited any promotional material out. This still leaves this article out in need of establishing WP:N. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per reliable source from Tengri News: "Legendary Larry King to come to Kazakhstan to moderate KAZENERGY Eurasian Forum." from Tengri News. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Cleaned up article more, added inline citation from reliable source. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Formatted reference section, cleaned up article significantly. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Article could be merged into a new article titled Kazenergy Eurasian Forum. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Article currently passes WP:SOURCES, particularly "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Regarding nomination to delete listed above by C.Fred, a secondary source is now present in the article, from Tengri News. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Regarding statement from nominator for deletion Drmies, "Content aside, I can't find any justification for the topic as being of encyclopedic relevance": The article is significantly relevant, and is based in part upon the heads of government agencies from various countries and the worlds's largest multi-national energy corporations, along with world-renowned industry experts meeting to discuss key energy industry issues in Eurasia and the world. The topic is obviously of encyclopedic relevance and significance. Refer to Energy industry and Energy for significant encyclopedic articles closely related to this topic. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I propose that his AfD be Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached, based upon significant improvements made to the article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Another notable reference was added to the article, from CNN Money. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Improved article more, wikified speakers whom have Wikipedia articles, which also increases the relevance of the article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Article in its current form now passes General notability guidelines and WP:SOURCES, more reliable sources were added. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Rewriting article to remove advertising and promotional language and presentation. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Added more highly relevant internal links to "Speakers" section. There are many significant internal links within this article, which also establishes the article as more notable due to a high incidence of closely related article links within the article. This further exemplifies the significance of inclusion of the article in Wikipedia. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I added the Under construction template to the article, I'd like more time to improve the article. If it's deleted, it won't be accessible to anyone except administrators. Therefore, I would like to postpone the deletion of the article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Underconstruction tag removed. More significant cleanup done. This article is now much better formatted with significantly improved layout. Many more inline citations were added from reliable sources. As a side note, I find the inclusion of this article to also be significant in terms of covering a significant geopolitical event in which numerous world leaders, corporate leaders and industry experts meet to confer about global energy requirements, energy in Eurasia, sustainable development and other significant matters of global importance. It is much more noteworthy than any article about South Park, The Simpsons, Family Guy, etc., of which there are multitudes on Wikipedia, yet those topics receive more coverage from mainstream mass media sources, particularly in the U.S. In the age of infotainment, television episodes are given higher priority in mass media because they are more popular and attract higher audience numbers, which strongly correlates with higher advertising revenues. Importantly, the article now passes General notability guidelines and WP:SOURCES. Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – To reiterate, in case my proposal above is missed due to the number of comments here, I propose that his AfD be Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached, based upon significant improvements made to the article, including more reliable inline citations and others listed above. Northamerica1000 (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment this article was a blatant advertisement for the upcoming event. I've noticed that the list of topics and people are merely a listing from the event program pertaining to and only to the upcoming event. I think those lists do not merit stayingCantaloupe2 (talk) 04:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I put the "Speakers" section in the article back in place for the time being, as it serves to significantly improve the significance of the topic, article and event. It is my hope that this section wasn't deleted en masse to make the article inferior to encourage your stated stance of deletion regarding the article. It seems reasonable to leave this section in place for others to consider while this article is in AfD, rather than deleting all of my work before others can consider it. There are many significant internal links in the "Speakers" section you deleted that further establish notability of the article as a whole, and the internal links improve access to other Wikipedia articles. In this manner, users can learn about the organizations, governments, corporations and companies that are involved in the energy forum, rather than having to search for them. Per your rationale, the data that you deleted is inferior because it is present in another source, in this case, apparently in an event program. In this case, the data deleted was, per your statement, from a primary source. Primary sources can serve to establish notability for and verify the information within an article. Per WP:PRIMARY, "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." There is no interpretation occurring within the section that could qualify as WP:SYNTHESIS whatsoever. In the process of blanket-deleting this section en masse, many references that establish notability of the article were also immediately removed, which highly correlates with your stance to delete the article. By reducing the notable references I added, it increases the likelihood of deletion. To reiterate, this section is appropriate, meets Wikipedia guidelines to further verify the article's contents, and also serves to further establish the notability of the article. It is inappropriate to remove this data while the article is in this AfD. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The following section and its data were reinstated in the article: Main topics for discussion. The rationale for reversion in the edit summary was based upon a Wikipedia essay. Essays are not Wikipedia policies. The views presented in essays should be considered carefully and with discretion, because they are not based upon concensus, are opinion pieces and are not Wikipedia policies whatsoever. There appears to be a conflict of interest in the deletion of data from the article en masse all of the sudden, to prevent an objective assessment of the article being included on Wikipedia. Northamerica1000 (talk) 08:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
followup Establishing the notability of future speakers isn't likely to make the anticipated event notable, because the event has YET to become notable. Historical event is something else. So, if someone notable has spoken at an event, that event can become notable, but if they have yet to do so, I don't believe it does. Since the interest of article creator is to advertise the event, holding off until notable speakers have spoken before adding information that will be seen as promoting the event will clear the conflict of interest. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – My improvements to the article continue to be instantly reverted, apparently to delete article improvements and promote an agenda to delete the article. Please refer to the following link from the article's history archive for an objective summary of the improvements I've made to the article, including content verification and the inclusion of reliable sources that verify the notability for the article's inclusion on Wikipedia— 6th KAZENERGY Eurasian Forum - 'old' revision. This is the version intended for people to view, so the article can be objectively reviewed. Users that want to delete the article in entirety are censoring the article's improvements to prevent stated objective review. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

response It is indisputable that the page was created with the purpose of advertising the upcoming event. Look at an older version some of earlier versions Please provide an explanation on how the lists of topics and speakers scheduled for a future event makes this organization notable right now. That's like claiming a business as notable based on expected contribution of notable people in the future. WP:NOTDIR suggests notable historical program maybe worthy, but upcoming program doesn't appear to pass the criteria. If anyone else feels otherwise, please provide an argument. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no independent, reliable, significant sources about the forum. I only see announcements and ads. Maybe an article could be created about the forum itself, but there nothings to make the 6th annual event notable. Bgwhite (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Please refer to "Legendary Larry King to come to Kazakhstan to moderate KAZENERGY Eurasian Forum." from Tengri News, which establishes notability for the article's topic. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, you understand that they are paying him to go there, right? Drmies (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Please refer to another news source just added to the article: "Implementation of most of the current oil and gas projects will bring Kazakhstan into the top five oil producers: Timur Kulibayev." from Tengri News. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your second source never mentions the conference. A reference HAS TO refer to the subject. The first source is just an announcement. They even quote the webpage of the conference to tell what is going to happen. An announcement of an event is considered a trivial source. Same as an announcement of a sporting or musical event. From GNG, "large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage" Bgwhite (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I disagree with the opinions of User: Cantaloupe2 stated above this message regarding notable future events. Per the rationales stated by User: Cantaloupe2, all of the following articles about upcoming films are therefore also not encyclopedic, non-notable and should be deleted, because they are scheduled upcoming events that haven't occurred yet, the formatting of each article is program-like, and they are therefore, essentially advertising for upcoming events:

The rationale for the removal of the "Speakers" section in this 6th KAZENERGY Eurasian Forum article is unsubstantiated based upon precedent, and is based upon the opinions of User talk:Cantaloupe2, rather than precedent and guidelines. Open this link to view the "Speakers" section of the article that was removed. Thank you. Northamerica1000 (talk) 00:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is the 6th forum and not an article about upcoming forums. There are NO articles for 2015-2023 in films. Please stop making up articles that don't exist to prove a point. Per WP:NFF, a film must have commenced shooting in order to have a page on Wikipedia. Bgwhite (talk) 07:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In other news: The KAZENERGY Eurasian Forum was just created. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 9 September 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. v/r - T P 03:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Profusion Group

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

Promo for a non-notable company. A7 refused because of "several reliable references" being "included", which isn't true (the references all either fail RS or aren't substantial coverage). Miracle Pen (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cites are all self-made - press releases or given interviews - nothing independent. Back office outfit with no notability or any assertion of notability to warrant inclusion here. Sadly it is hardly even promotional Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete refs need to be independent, so fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:41, 8 September 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. v/r - T P 03:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dull Boy (novel)

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

Almost immediately after its creation, the article was proposed for deletion twice. The creator first claimed that the book's notable publisher established its notability, but this is clearly untrue; notability is not inherited. The references are just blog posts and passing mentions by some book reviewers. I don't think this meets the general notability guideline. Inter change able|talk to me 19:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Though blog reviews don't necessarily constitute reliable sources, the number of blog reviews on top of the Publisher's Weekly review help this book clear notability and suggest that the work is having a significant impact in the YA community, Sadads (talk) 18:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One review from a reliable source is not sufficient to establish notability. The blog reviews from booksale sites provide no evidence of notability. Was it ever a New York Times bestseller? That implies notability for some editors who participate in AFD, as shown by a discussion at the talk page of Wikipedia:Notability (books) , which guideline this book does not appear to satisfy. Was it just an also-ran, which disappeared into the remainder racks after a couple of months? Notability is not inherited from the name of the publisher. I need to see more reviews published in reliable sources. "Having a significant impact" in some "community" assertions by an editor here do not establish notability. Where is the reliable source that established s that impact? That would help the notability argument. Edison (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references cited in the article are not reliable souurces that establish notability, and I'm not seeing any in Web searches. Deor (talk) 03:31, 8 September 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. v/r - T P 03:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mississippi Show Stoppers

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

I am unable to find significant coverage for this choir. While notable people have been a part of it, it was obviously before they were famous. The article describes the choir as "many talented children and teens- singers, dancers, choreographers, gymnasts and actors." Joe Chill (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. Searching for sources on this one is tough due to so many other groups with similar names, but although I found just enough to convince me this isn't a hoax I found no substantial coverage whatsoever, nor anything asserting notability of the group itself. One says they "traveled around the state promoting the Mississippi Agriculture Museum", but the museum's website doesn't even mention them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:41, 8 September 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 or merge to BC Film Commission. Seems like a non-controversial merge with no further need of debate. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Victoria Film Commission

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

Company promotion for a company that in the light of its business (film-industry) is not very often mentioned on the internet (7710 hits). It does not look very notable. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The two newspaper articles cited as references are local, but the organization seems to play a significant role in the Canadian film industry. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable to Canada film is fine with en.Wikipedia.[43][44] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redir to BC Film Commission to whom they are (IMO) a local branch of. This 'Branch' could not operate without the assistance of the Parent organization. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 07:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A merge and redirect to the parent organization is fine with me. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:18, 6 September 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. over seven days, since it was relisted all deletes including nominator have opined to keep. —SpacemanSpiff 20:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hoogar

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

No convincing sources found. ~~Could be a hoax.~~ Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Certainly not a hoax. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting, so it is a (former??) caste. I keep learning... Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this article needs to be expanded, if there is more verifiable info can be found otherwise, we can consider moving it to Wiktionary, quite intriguing. I'm yearning to learn more. The Terminator p t c 21:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as failing WP:GNG. Given the long history of caste-based discrimination we need to be careful about quality sources here. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Comment I have struck my !vote out, due to good, quality, references found by Cullen328. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have expanded the article, and added three references to reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Night of the Big Wind, they are not a caste per se, but are instead a part of a religious group that has rejected the caste system for 800 years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Keep Expansion and addition of sources by Cullen328 has greatly improved the article – makes it clear that this article should stay. LK (talk) 11:30, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this has been expanded to a satisfactory level? The Determinator p t c 18:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for speedy keep The article is greatly improved. My fear for a hoax is sufficiently squashed. And with the addition of text and sources I did not find, it is clear that the article deserves its place on Wikipedia. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:54, 8 September 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) Off2riorob (talk) 03:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sinfest

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

No evidence of notability. Cites consist of passing mentions in articles about many webcomics, or pages created by the webcomic's author. Guy Macon (talk) 11:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - There are many passing mentions here and there (beyond the references listed), and the deepest coverage I have found online is this PC MAG entry. Looking for the author (Tatsuya Ishida) instead, I also got this coverage by Publishers Weekly. The article itself needs some trimming though.--70.80.234.163 (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, per WP:WEB. Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards winner. Powers ^T 18:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources provided by 70.80.234.163 and sources already included in article (Salon, sfgate.com) more than establish notability. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY Keep Nominator is correct that things like the Salon and San Francisco Chronicle/Gate sources are trivial one sentence mentions and do not satisfy WP:NOTABILITY. Powers is incorrect in thinking that notability is inherited from something like the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards. PC Mag coverage is pretty trivial, however this Library Journal review and this Publishers Weekly source suggest this topic does have the significant coverage in multiple independent sources that we need. Article does need a major rewrite. Rangoondispenser (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me? I said nothing about notability being inherited. The Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards win is an indicator of notability. WP:WEB is quite clear that such award winners are likely to be notable. Powers ^T 02:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your "Keep, All XXXXX are notable" argument is a classic example of a WP:INHERITED argument. And, no, some minor online award is not an indicator of WP:Notability. WP:WEB is quite clear that winning a well-known award is likely to result in notability, but of course not little-known awards. Rangoondispenser (talk) 03:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Again you mischaracterize my argument. Cease setting up straw men for you to knock down and address what I actually wrote. Powers ^T 12:20, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - What was your argument then? It looked to me like you were saying "Keep, All Web Cartoonists' Choice Award winners are notable." Rangoondispenser (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Per WP:WEB, subjects that have "won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization" are highly likely to be notable enough for an article. That's not the same as "all award winners are notable". Powers ^T 13:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, one of the few webcomics to get published in print, among other notable accomplishments. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are far more than a few webcomics in print -- see Category:Webcomics_in_print or List_of_webcomics_in_print for over a hundred others. Rangoondispenser (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The "Sinfest in print" section of the article is especially problematic. With one exception, it only lists books published by the author of the webcomic. The one exception claims that "Sinfest has appeared in the comic magazine Nemi" but the link to Nemi is to a comic strip, not a publication. Does anyone have any acytual evidence that Sinfest has ever been in print? Guy Macon (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you look at which ones were non-self-published, you can slash that number in half or more. I think the article already has a suitable citation showing that his anthologies have been picked up by Dark Horse. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Powers. Article needs improvement; the Overview section in particular is oddly organized. Is there any problem with updating the article during an RfD? rewinn (talk) 03:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Improving an article is never a problem. Rangoondispenser (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator: If I see the above-mentioned indications of notability incorporated into the article (especially the "published in print" claim), I will withdraw my nomination for deletion. Far better to improve an article rather than deleting it. Guy Macon (talk) 04:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While it does happen that a bunch of keep votes alone is enough to save an article, it is far more certain to be retained if the evidence of notability is incorporated into the article rather than just discussed on the talk page. I would encourage those who have voted to keep this page to take the next step and improve the article with some citations. Guy Macon (talk) 23:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here's another non-trivial source: a Publishers' Weekly interview with Ishida on the release of his 2nd book. [45] Jpatokal (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One could only hope that some of the effort that is going into the above keep votes would go into actually improving the Sinfest Wikipedia page. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Responding to your suggestion of withdrawal) Are you trying to make some kind of point here? It's fair if you don't feel like improving an article you sent to AFD, but why don't you just withdraw the nom now? It looks basically like SNOW keep already. I don't see the point to you sitting here with your hands in the air, trying to get drive-by commenters to incorporate stuff into the article. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When making such decisions, I always make the choice that is most likely to benefit Wikipedia. I have no expertise in the area of web comics, but clearly many of the commenters do. Waiting a couple more days may result in one of them improving the article. Guy Macon (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sourcing indicates notability. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AFD is not cleanup, first of all. You don't nominate something for deletion unless you believe the article's subject isn't notable. Reliable sources have been found that give adequate coverage of this webcomic. Also if you want something added to the article, such as the sources found, then do it yourself. Dream Focus 10:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I nominated it I did not see any indications of notability. Please assume good faith. I would attempt to make the improvements myself, but somehow I suspect that someone who has actually read at least one SinFest webcomic might be better qualified to do that. AFD is not cleanup, but it is never wrong to encourage people to improve an article. Guy Macon (talk) 11:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've updated my original comment above to "Speedy Keep." See Wikipedia:Speedy keep -- Nominator has effectively withdrawn their "No evidence of notability" nomination when they write "it appears to me that notability has been established by the publishers weekly citation"[46] that was provide 6 days ago.[47] They've also said that "If I see the above-mentioned indications of notability incorporated into the article (especially the "published in print" claim), I will withdraw my nomination for deletion."[48] Of course, the article has for over a year and a half[49] had the "published in print claim" with attribution that "Dark Horse Comics republished in June 2009 the first volume of compiled strips". Rangoondispenser (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop putting words in my mouth. I have "effectively withdrawn" nothing. There is nothing wrong with choosing to let an AfD run it's course. You are on the verge of bullying here. Guy Macon (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if quoting your contradictions exactly hurts your feelings. Rangoondispenser (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.darkhorse.com/Books/16-026/Sinfest-Volume-1 says:
Web traffic on Sinfest.net averages 1.7 million unique visitors per month and 300,000 page hits per day.
"After seven years and counting, Tatsuya Ishida shows every indication of maturing into a cartoonist on the level of Bill Watterson and Walt Kelly." -The Comics Journal, "50 Excellent Comics from 2007"
"The best webcomic out there." -comicsworthreading.com
" . . . Sinfest offers many laughs; it may be brutally funny, but it is dead honest and refreshing." -Publisher's Weekly
http://www.darkhorse.com/Books/16-570/Sinfest-Viva-La-Resistance
Widely acclaimed for both style and content, Sinfest is a frequent entry in critics' "Best Comics of the Year" lists (The Comics Journal, MTV, Comics Reporter, Comics Worth Reading) and just hit its tenth year of serialization. Don't miss it!
Web traffic on sinfest.net averages 2.3 million unique visitors per month!

If you ever doubt something is notable, look on the official site that publishes it. Dream Focus 19:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DF, every now and then one of these gems comes out of your keyboard that so clearly show you have no clue whatsoever. Do you work on these, prepare them and tweak them, or do they come naturally? I'm going to find a place to have these words engraved. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sites that publish them always have reviews quoted from notable sources. So if you want to see if something was reviewed by a reliable source, a good place to look is there. Also see Wikipedia:Don't be a dick. Dream Focus 01:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what a "blurb" is? Are you aware that we don't cite blurbs? Drmies (talk) 03:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If notable sites such as The Comics Journal and Publisher's Weekly have reviewed this, then that's notable and can be cited. Also you can check their sites and easily find the entire reviews. [50] Dream Focus 03:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my French: NOT FROM THE FUCKING PUBLISHER'S SITE. It's the essence of RS. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 12 September 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.